@olegkoval/agent-skills 1.25.0 → 1.26.0

package/packages/software-development/codexloop/adapters/claude/skills/codexloop/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,262 @@
+---
+name: codexloop
+description: >
+  Iteratively satisfy OpenAI Codex's code review on a GitHub PR, but treat every Codex comment
+  SKEPTICALLY: verify each finding against the real code first, fix ONLY the genuinely-correct
+  ones, and rebut + resolve false positives WITHOUT changing correct code. Repeat until no
+  unresolved Codex comments remain. Use when the user says "satisfy codex", "clear the codex
+  review", "fix codex comments", "codex loop", or wants to iterate on Codex PR review feedback.
+compatibility: GitHub only (Codex code review is a GitHub app). Requires git + gh (GitHub CLI) authenticated, and the Codex / ChatGPT connector app installed on the repo with code review enabled.
+metadata:
+  version: "1.0"
+allowed-tools: Bash(gh:*) Bash(git:*)
+---
+<!-- Generated by scripts/build-adapters.sh. Do not edit directly. -->
+
+# Codexloop
+
+Drive a GitHub PR until Codex has no unresolved review comments — **but do not cargo-cult its
+suggestions.** Every comment is a *claim to verify*, not an instruction to obey. A wrong
+suggestion applied is worse than the comment itself.
+
+## How Codex differs from Greptile / Gemini
+
+- **No check-run, no score.** Codex does not publish an `X/5` confidence or a named check. It posts
+  a **PR review** (state `COMMENTED`) plus inline review comments. Detection is by polling the
+  *reviews* endpoint. "Satisfied" = zero unresolved comments (each either fixed or rebutted).
+- **Trigger phrase is `@codex review`.** Codex reviews automatically when a PR opens or gets new
+  commits if auto-review is enabled on the repo; the mention forces a fresh pass. Other useful
+  mentions: `@codex review focus on <area>` for a scoped re-review.
+- **Priority, not confidence.** Codex findings usually lead with a severity/priority word (`P1`,
+  `P2`, `P3` or `critical`/`major`/`minor`) or a short titled heading. Weight the top tier
+  seriously; treat the bottom tier as usually-skippable nits unless clearly correct.
+- **Codex is terse and often reasons from the diff alone.** Its characteristic failure is
+  confidently asserting a bug based only on the changed hunk, without the surrounding file or the
+  call sites. That makes "read the whole file before believing it" the single highest-value check.
+
+## Not for
+
+- GitLab / Perforce (Codex code review is a GitHub app). For other review bots this catalog ships
+  `geminiloop`, `coderabbitloop`, and `qodoloop`; for CI failures rather than review comments, use
+  `ci-fix-loop`.
+
+## 0. Resolve the Codex bot login (do this first, do not hardcode)
+
+The connector's bot login varies by installation, so discover it from the PR rather than
+assuming it:
+
+```bash
+gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<PR>/reviews --paginate --jq '.[].user.login' | sort -u
+gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<PR>/comments --paginate --jq '.[].user.login' | sort -u
+```
+
+Pick the login matching `*codex*` (commonly `chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]`, sometimes
+`codex[bot]`) and export it as `BOT`.
+
+**Finding nothing here is NOT a stop condition.** On a PR Codex has never reviewed there is no bot
+login to find yet — that is the normal starting state, not a missing app. When the probe comes back
+empty, fall through to step 2A, post `@codex review`, and re-run this probe once a review lands;
+until then match any login containing `codex` when polling. Only conclude the app is absent after
+step 2A's bounded wait has expired with no review and no codex-like login anywhere on the PR — and
+then say so and stop, rather than looping against nothing.
+
+## 1. Identify the PR
+
+```bash
+gh pr view --json number,headRefName,headRefOid -q '{number,branch:.headRefName,head:.headRefOid}'
+```
+
+Switch to the PR branch if not already on it. Capture `OWNER`/`REPO` (`gh repo view --json owner,name`).
+
+## 2. The loop (max 5 iterations)
+
+Keep an explicit iteration counter and stop at 5 — the cap is a real bound to enforce, not a
+figure of speech. Each pass through A–G is one iteration; on hitting the cap, go straight to the
+report and list what is still unresolved rather than starting a sixth.
+
+### A. Ensure a fresh Codex review on the current head
+
+```bash
+HEAD_SHA=$(gh pr view <PR> --json headRefOid -q .headRefOid)
+# Only trigger if no Codex review already exists for this exact SHA:
+HAVE=$(gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<PR>/reviews --paginate \
+  --jq "[.[] | select(.user.login==\"$BOT\" and .commit_id==\"$HEAD_SHA\")] | length")
+if [ "$HAVE" = "0" ]; then gh pr comment <PR> --body "@codex review"; fi
+```
+
+Poll for the review of THIS head to land. No check-run exists, so poll the reviews endpoint — and
+poll it on a **deadline**, never `while true`: a review that never arrives must end the skill with
+an honest timeout, not hang it.
+
+```bash
+# 10-minute deadline, one retry, then give up. DEADLINE/RETRIES are the
+# enforcement of the bounds this skill claims — do not drop them.
+wait_for_review() {                       # $1 = attempt label
+  local deadline=$(( SECONDS + 600 ))
+  while [ "$SECONDS" -lt "$deadline" ]; do
+    R=$(gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<PR>/reviews --paginate \
+      --jq "[.[] | select(.user.login==\"$BOT\" and .commit_id==\"$HEAD_SHA\")] | last")
+    if [ -n "$R" ] && [ "$R" != "null" ]; then return 0; fi
+    echo "waiting for Codex review of $HEAD_SHA ($1)..."; sleep 15
+  done
+  return 1
+}
+
+if ! wait_for_review "first wait"; then
+  echo "no Codex review after 10m — retrying once"     # say the retry out loud
+  gh pr comment <PR> --body "@codex review"
+  if ! wait_for_review "after retry"; then
+    echo "Codex did not review $HEAD_SHA after a retry; stopping and reporting."
+    exit 1                                # honest timeout, never a success claim
+  fi
+fi
+```
+
+Codex can take several minutes on a large diff, which is why the deadline is generous. Report the
+retry in the final summary; two silent timeouts are the failure mode this guard exists to prevent.
+
+### B. Fetch the findings
+
+- **Summary**: the review `.body` from the object above — read the overall take and the priority
+  spread.
+- **Unresolved inline comments** on the current head:
+
+```bash
+gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<PR>/comments --paginate \
+  --jq ".[] | select(.user.login==\"$BOT\") | {id, path, line, body}"
+```
+
+Also pull the review threads + their resolved state via GraphQL (see step F) so you only act on
+unresolved ones.
+
+### C. Critically evaluate EACH comment (the core of this skill)
+
+For every comment, **verify the claim against the actual code and repo conventions before touching
+anything.** Read the whole file — not just the diff hunk Codex saw — plus the types and the call
+sites. Then classify:
+
+1. **CORRECT + actionable** — the finding is real and the fix improves the code. → fix it (step D).
+2. **FALSE POSITIVE / technically wrong** — the claim doesn't hold. → do **NOT** change code; write a
+   specific, evidence-based reply (cite the exact code/line/behavior that disproves it), then resolve.
+3. **Valid but out-of-scope / stylistic nit** that conflicts with repo convention or the PR's intent
+   → briefly decline with a reason, then resolve. Do not expand the PR's scope to satisfy a nit.
+
+**Hard rules:**
+- **Never modify correct code just to silence Codex.** Prefer a reasoned rebuttal.
+- When uncertain whether a claim holds, **investigate** (read more code, run the type-checker / tests)
+  rather than assume Codex is right. Default to skepticism.
+- If a suggested change would break other call sites, alter public behavior, or contradict a verified
+  repo convention, it is a category-2 rebuttal, not a fix.
+- Never fabricate identifiers to satisfy a comment (e.g. a Linear/ticket prefix). If Codex asks for a
+  ticket reference and none exists, say so; do not invent one.
+
+**Codex's common failure modes to watch for (default these to category 2):**
+- Diff-local reasoning: asserts a bug that the unchanged surrounding code already handles.
+- "This can be null/undefined here" where the type or an earlier guard already rules it out.
+- Invented race conditions or error paths with no actual trigger.
+- Suggestions that compile-break or break other callers.
+- Security/perf warnings with no exploit path or measurable cost.
+- Restating library/framework semantics incorrectly.
+- Style demands that contradict the repo's existing, consistent pattern.
+
+### D. Apply fixes — category 1 only
+
+Make the minimal correct change. Re-run the local gate if the repo has one (typecheck/tests) before
+moving on.
+
+### E. Commit and push FIRST, before resolving anything
+
+Order matters. A resolved thread is a claim that the fix is on the branch, so the push has to
+succeed before the claim is made — otherwise a failed commit or push leaves the PR unfixed with the
+finding marked resolved, and nobody looks at it again.
+
+If step D changed code:
+
+```bash
+# Stage ONLY the files your fixes touched — never `git add -A`, which sweeps up
+# unrelated work and untracked secrets sitting in the worktree.
+git status --short                     # look before you stage
+git add <path> [<path>...]             # the files named in the findings you fixed
+git commit -m "address codex review feedback (codexloop iteration N)"
+git push
+```
+
+Author the commit per the repo's norms (e.g. the user's identity; no AI attribution if that is the
+convention). Confirm the push actually landed before continuing:
+
+```bash
+git rev-parse HEAD
+gh pr view <PR> --json headRefOid -q .headRefOid   # must match
+```
+
+If they differ, stop: the fix is not on the PR, so nothing may be resolved yet.
+
+### F. Reply to and resolve every addressed thread
+
+Only now, with the fixes pushed, reply and resolve. Fetch unresolved threads, **following
+pagination** — a PR with more than 100 threads will otherwise look clean while unresolved findings
+sit on page two:
+
+```bash
+# Loop until hasNextPage is false, passing endCursor back in as $cursor.
+CURSOR=null
+while : ; do
+  PAGE=$(gh api graphql -F cursor="$CURSOR" -f query='
+  query($cursor: String) {
+    repository(owner: "OWNER", name: "REPO") {
+      pullRequest(number: PR_NUMBER) {
+        reviewThreads(first: 100, after: $cursor) {
+          pageInfo { hasNextPage endCursor }
+          nodes { id isResolved comments(first: 1) { nodes { databaseId author { login } path body } } }
+        }
+      }
+    }
+  }')
+  echo "$PAGE"          # collect nodes from every page before deciding the PR is clean
+  PI='.data.repository.pullRequest.reviewThreads.pageInfo'
+  [ "$(echo "$PAGE" | jq -r "$PI.hasNextPage")" = "true" ] || break
+  CURSOR=$(echo "$PAGE" | jq -r "$PI.endCursor")
+done
+```
+
+Reply on a thread's comment via `gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<PR>/comments -f body="..." -F in_reply_to=<comment_id>`,
+then resolve:
+
+```bash
+gh api graphql -f query='mutation { resolveReviewThread(input: {threadId: "THREAD_ID"}) { thread { isResolved } } }'
+```
+
+Resolve a thread only for comments authored by `$BOT` that you have fixed or rebutted — never
+blanket-resolve, and never resolve a human reviewer's thread.
+
+Threads you are **rebutting** need no push, so they may be replied to and resolved regardless of
+whether step D changed code.
+
+### G. Re-review
+
+Pushing re-triggers Codex when auto-review is on; otherwise post `@codex review`. Go back to **A**
+with the new head SHA. If step D changed nothing (all comments were rebutted), skip the push,
+ensure all threads are resolved, and exit.
+
+## 3. Exit conditions
+
+Stop when **any** is true:
+- Zero unresolved `$BOT` comments remain, and every comment this round was fixed or
+  rebutted+resolved. (There is no score to hit — this is "done".)
+- Max iterations (5) reached — report what remains.
+- Codex never responded after one retry — report the timeout honestly; do not claim success.
+
+## 4. Report
+
+```text
+Codexloop complete.
+  PR:                 #<n>
+  Bot login:          <resolved $BOT>
+  Iterations:         N
+  Comments fixed:     N   (genuinely-correct findings)
+  Comments rebutted:  N   (false positives / nits, resolved with rationale)
+  Remaining:          0
+```
+
+If it stopped at max iterations, list the remaining threads with your current assessment
+(fix-pending vs disputed) so a human can arbitrate.

package/packages/software-development/codexloop/adapters/codex/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+# Codex Adapter for codexloop
+
+This is a Codex-specific adapter for the `olko:codexloop` skill.
+The canonical skill definition is in `../../SKILL.md`.
+
+## Usage
+
+Invoke in a Codex session:
+
+```
+Use the olko:codexloop skill to clear the Codex review on this PR.
+```
+
+## Workflow
+
+See `../../SKILL.md` for the full workflow: resolve the Codex bot login from the PR itself
+(it varies by installation, so it is never hardcoded), post `@codex review` when no review exists
+for the current head, poll the reviews endpoint until it lands, then evaluate every inline comment
+against the real code before touching anything — fix only the findings that hold, rebut the rest
+with evidence, reply to and resolve each thread, push, and repeat until clean or the iteration cap
+is reached. The procedure is plain `git`/`gh` and is agent-agnostic.
+
+Note the skill is deliberately skeptical: Codex reasons largely from the diff hunk, so its
+characteristic failure is asserting a bug that the unchanged surrounding code already handles.
+Reading the whole file and the call sites before accepting a finding is the point of the loop, and
+a wrong suggestion applied is worse than the comment itself.

package/packages/software-development/codexloop/adapters/cursor/plugin.json

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+{
+  "name": "olko:codexloop",
+  "version": "0.1.0",
+  "description": "Iteratively drives a GitHub PR to zero unresolved OpenAI Codex review comments — but verifies every finding against the real code first, fixes only the correct ones, and rebuts false positives without changing correct code.",
+  "skills": "skills/"
+}

package/packages/software-development/codexloop/adapters/cursor/skills/codexloop/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,263 @@
+---
+name: codexloop
+description: >
+  Iteratively satisfy OpenAI Codex's code review on a GitHub PR, but treat every Codex comment
+  SKEPTICALLY: verify each finding against the real code first, fix ONLY the genuinely-correct
+  ones, and rebut + resolve false positives WITHOUT changing correct code. Repeat until no
+  unresolved Codex comments remain. Use when the user says "satisfy codex", "clear the codex
+  review", "fix codex comments", "codex loop", or wants to iterate on Codex PR review feedback.
+compatibility: GitHub only (Codex code review is a GitHub app). Requires git + gh (GitHub CLI) authenticated, and the Codex / ChatGPT connector app installed on the repo with code review enabled.
+metadata:
+  targets: ["cursor"]
+  version: "1.0"
+allowed-tools: Bash(gh:*) Bash(git:*)
+---
+<!-- Generated by scripts/build-adapters.sh. Do not edit directly. -->
+
+# Codexloop
+
+Drive a GitHub PR until Codex has no unresolved review comments — **but do not cargo-cult its
+suggestions.** Every comment is a *claim to verify*, not an instruction to obey. A wrong
+suggestion applied is worse than the comment itself.
+
+## How Codex differs from Greptile / Gemini
+
+- **No check-run, no score.** Codex does not publish an `X/5` confidence or a named check. It posts
+  a **PR review** (state `COMMENTED`) plus inline review comments. Detection is by polling the
+  *reviews* endpoint. "Satisfied" = zero unresolved comments (each either fixed or rebutted).
+- **Trigger phrase is `@codex review`.** Codex reviews automatically when a PR opens or gets new
+  commits if auto-review is enabled on the repo; the mention forces a fresh pass. Other useful
+  mentions: `@codex review focus on <area>` for a scoped re-review.
+- **Priority, not confidence.** Codex findings usually lead with a severity/priority word (`P1`,
+  `P2`, `P3` or `critical`/`major`/`minor`) or a short titled heading. Weight the top tier
+  seriously; treat the bottom tier as usually-skippable nits unless clearly correct.
+- **Codex is terse and often reasons from the diff alone.** Its characteristic failure is
+  confidently asserting a bug based only on the changed hunk, without the surrounding file or the
+  call sites. That makes "read the whole file before believing it" the single highest-value check.
+
+## Not for
+
+- GitLab / Perforce (Codex code review is a GitHub app). For other review bots this catalog ships
+  `geminiloop`, `coderabbitloop`, and `qodoloop`; for CI failures rather than review comments, use
+  `ci-fix-loop`.
+
+## 0. Resolve the Codex bot login (do this first, do not hardcode)
+
+The connector's bot login varies by installation, so discover it from the PR rather than
+assuming it:
+
+```bash
+gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<PR>/reviews --paginate --jq '.[].user.login' | sort -u
+gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<PR>/comments --paginate --jq '.[].user.login' | sort -u
+```
+
+Pick the login matching `*codex*` (commonly `chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]`, sometimes
+`codex[bot]`) and export it as `BOT`.
+
+**Finding nothing here is NOT a stop condition.** On a PR Codex has never reviewed there is no bot
+login to find yet — that is the normal starting state, not a missing app. When the probe comes back
+empty, fall through to step 2A, post `@codex review`, and re-run this probe once a review lands;
+until then match any login containing `codex` when polling. Only conclude the app is absent after
+step 2A's bounded wait has expired with no review and no codex-like login anywhere on the PR — and
+then say so and stop, rather than looping against nothing.
+
+## 1. Identify the PR
+
+```bash
+gh pr view --json number,headRefName,headRefOid -q '{number,branch:.headRefName,head:.headRefOid}'
+```
+
+Switch to the PR branch if not already on it. Capture `OWNER`/`REPO` (`gh repo view --json owner,name`).
+
+## 2. The loop (max 5 iterations)
+
+Keep an explicit iteration counter and stop at 5 — the cap is a real bound to enforce, not a
+figure of speech. Each pass through A–G is one iteration; on hitting the cap, go straight to the
+report and list what is still unresolved rather than starting a sixth.
+
+### A. Ensure a fresh Codex review on the current head
+
+```bash
+HEAD_SHA=$(gh pr view <PR> --json headRefOid -q .headRefOid)
+# Only trigger if no Codex review already exists for this exact SHA:
+HAVE=$(gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<PR>/reviews --paginate \
+  --jq "[.[] | select(.user.login==\"$BOT\" and .commit_id==\"$HEAD_SHA\")] | length")
+if [ "$HAVE" = "0" ]; then gh pr comment <PR> --body "@codex review"; fi
+```
+
+Poll for the review of THIS head to land. No check-run exists, so poll the reviews endpoint — and
+poll it on a **deadline**, never `while true`: a review that never arrives must end the skill with
+an honest timeout, not hang it.
+
+```bash
+# 10-minute deadline, one retry, then give up. DEADLINE/RETRIES are the
+# enforcement of the bounds this skill claims — do not drop them.
+wait_for_review() {                       # $1 = attempt label
+  local deadline=$(( SECONDS + 600 ))
+  while [ "$SECONDS" -lt "$deadline" ]; do
+    R=$(gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<PR>/reviews --paginate \
+      --jq "[.[] | select(.user.login==\"$BOT\" and .commit_id==\"$HEAD_SHA\")] | last")
+    if [ -n "$R" ] && [ "$R" != "null" ]; then return 0; fi
+    echo "waiting for Codex review of $HEAD_SHA ($1)..."; sleep 15
+  done
+  return 1
+}
+
+if ! wait_for_review "first wait"; then
+  echo "no Codex review after 10m — retrying once"     # say the retry out loud
+  gh pr comment <PR> --body "@codex review"
+  if ! wait_for_review "after retry"; then
+    echo "Codex did not review $HEAD_SHA after a retry; stopping and reporting."
+    exit 1                                # honest timeout, never a success claim
+  fi
+fi
+```
+
+Codex can take several minutes on a large diff, which is why the deadline is generous. Report the
+retry in the final summary; two silent timeouts are the failure mode this guard exists to prevent.
+
+### B. Fetch the findings
+
+- **Summary**: the review `.body` from the object above — read the overall take and the priority
+  spread.
+- **Unresolved inline comments** on the current head:
+
+```bash
+gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<PR>/comments --paginate \
+  --jq ".[] | select(.user.login==\"$BOT\") | {id, path, line, body}"
+```
+
+Also pull the review threads + their resolved state via GraphQL (see step F) so you only act on
+unresolved ones.
+
+### C. Critically evaluate EACH comment (the core of this skill)
+
+For every comment, **verify the claim against the actual code and repo conventions before touching
+anything.** Read the whole file — not just the diff hunk Codex saw — plus the types and the call
+sites. Then classify:
+
+1. **CORRECT + actionable** — the finding is real and the fix improves the code. → fix it (step D).
+2. **FALSE POSITIVE / technically wrong** — the claim doesn't hold. → do **NOT** change code; write a
+   specific, evidence-based reply (cite the exact code/line/behavior that disproves it), then resolve.
+3. **Valid but out-of-scope / stylistic nit** that conflicts with repo convention or the PR's intent
+   → briefly decline with a reason, then resolve. Do not expand the PR's scope to satisfy a nit.
+
+**Hard rules:**
+- **Never modify correct code just to silence Codex.** Prefer a reasoned rebuttal.
+- When uncertain whether a claim holds, **investigate** (read more code, run the type-checker / tests)
+  rather than assume Codex is right. Default to skepticism.
+- If a suggested change would break other call sites, alter public behavior, or contradict a verified
+  repo convention, it is a category-2 rebuttal, not a fix.
+- Never fabricate identifiers to satisfy a comment (e.g. a Linear/ticket prefix). If Codex asks for a
+  ticket reference and none exists, say so; do not invent one.
+
+**Codex's common failure modes to watch for (default these to category 2):**
+- Diff-local reasoning: asserts a bug that the unchanged surrounding code already handles.
+- "This can be null/undefined here" where the type or an earlier guard already rules it out.
+- Invented race conditions or error paths with no actual trigger.
+- Suggestions that compile-break or break other callers.
+- Security/perf warnings with no exploit path or measurable cost.
+- Restating library/framework semantics incorrectly.
+- Style demands that contradict the repo's existing, consistent pattern.
+
+### D. Apply fixes — category 1 only
+
+Make the minimal correct change. Re-run the local gate if the repo has one (typecheck/tests) before
+moving on.
+
+### E. Commit and push FIRST, before resolving anything
+
+Order matters. A resolved thread is a claim that the fix is on the branch, so the push has to
+succeed before the claim is made — otherwise a failed commit or push leaves the PR unfixed with the
+finding marked resolved, and nobody looks at it again.
+
+If step D changed code:
+
+```bash
+# Stage ONLY the files your fixes touched — never `git add -A`, which sweeps up
+# unrelated work and untracked secrets sitting in the worktree.
+git status --short                     # look before you stage
+git add <path> [<path>...]             # the files named in the findings you fixed
+git commit -m "address codex review feedback (codexloop iteration N)"
+git push
+```
+
+Author the commit per the repo's norms (e.g. the user's identity; no AI attribution if that is the
+convention). Confirm the push actually landed before continuing:
+
+```bash
+git rev-parse HEAD
+gh pr view <PR> --json headRefOid -q .headRefOid   # must match
+```
+
+If they differ, stop: the fix is not on the PR, so nothing may be resolved yet.
+
+### F. Reply to and resolve every addressed thread
+
+Only now, with the fixes pushed, reply and resolve. Fetch unresolved threads, **following
+pagination** — a PR with more than 100 threads will otherwise look clean while unresolved findings
+sit on page two:
+
+```bash
+# Loop until hasNextPage is false, passing endCursor back in as $cursor.
+CURSOR=null
+while : ; do
+  PAGE=$(gh api graphql -F cursor="$CURSOR" -f query='
+  query($cursor: String) {
+    repository(owner: "OWNER", name: "REPO") {
+      pullRequest(number: PR_NUMBER) {
+        reviewThreads(first: 100, after: $cursor) {
+          pageInfo { hasNextPage endCursor }
+          nodes { id isResolved comments(first: 1) { nodes { databaseId author { login } path body } } }
+        }
+      }
+    }
+  }')
+  echo "$PAGE"          # collect nodes from every page before deciding the PR is clean
+  PI='.data.repository.pullRequest.reviewThreads.pageInfo'
+  [ "$(echo "$PAGE" | jq -r "$PI.hasNextPage")" = "true" ] || break
+  CURSOR=$(echo "$PAGE" | jq -r "$PI.endCursor")
+done
+```
+
+Reply on a thread's comment via `gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<PR>/comments -f body="..." -F in_reply_to=<comment_id>`,
+then resolve:
+
+```bash
+gh api graphql -f query='mutation { resolveReviewThread(input: {threadId: "THREAD_ID"}) { thread { isResolved } } }'
+```
+
+Resolve a thread only for comments authored by `$BOT` that you have fixed or rebutted — never
+blanket-resolve, and never resolve a human reviewer's thread.
+
+Threads you are **rebutting** need no push, so they may be replied to and resolved regardless of
+whether step D changed code.
+
+### G. Re-review
+
+Pushing re-triggers Codex when auto-review is on; otherwise post `@codex review`. Go back to **A**
+with the new head SHA. If step D changed nothing (all comments were rebutted), skip the push,
+ensure all threads are resolved, and exit.
+
+## 3. Exit conditions
+
+Stop when **any** is true:
+- Zero unresolved `$BOT` comments remain, and every comment this round was fixed or
+  rebutted+resolved. (There is no score to hit — this is "done".)
+- Max iterations (5) reached — report what remains.
+- Codex never responded after one retry — report the timeout honestly; do not claim success.
+
+## 4. Report
+
+```text
+Codexloop complete.
+  PR:                 #<n>
+  Bot login:          <resolved $BOT>
+  Iterations:         N
+  Comments fixed:     N   (genuinely-correct findings)
+  Comments rebutted:  N   (false positives / nits, resolved with rationale)
+  Remaining:          0
+```
+
+If it stopped at max iterations, list the remaining threads with your current assessment
+(fix-pending vs disputed) so a human can arbitrate.

package/packages/software-development/codexloop/adapters/grok/plugin.json

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+{
+  "name": "olko:codexloop",
+  "version": "0.1.0",
+  "description": "Iteratively drives a GitHub PR to zero unresolved OpenAI Codex review comments — but verifies every finding against the real code first, fixes only the correct ones, and rebuts false positives without changing correct code.",
+  "skills": "skills/"
+}