I had an interesting interaction this morning. While I was configuring the iloom plan mode codex reviewer, I noticed it wasn't checking the deferred tools list. Maybe there should be a small hint added to the prompt to remind it about deferred tools.
settings.json
{
"plan": {
"reviewer": "codex"
}
}
Conversation
il plan
❯ Does the iLoom workflow mention using codex to review artifacts at all?
⏺ Yes. The planning instructions include a review step after the initial plan is complete:
Reviewer: Codex - I'm told to use available Codex MCP tools (tools with "codex" in the name) to review the plan. The review checks for:
- Complexity sizing (each child issue should target SIMPLE)
- Proper scoping (1 issue = 1 loom = 1 PR)
- Dependency identification and sequencing
- Technical architecture and design decisions
- Security considerations
- Edge cases and error handling
- Testability and acceptance criteria clarity
- Performance implications
- Backwards compatibility concerns
Fallback: If Codex MCP tools are unavailable or return errors, I use a Task subagent (general-purpose) to perform the same review instead.
I don't see any "codex" MCP tools in the currently available tool list, so in practice I'd use the fallback path. Want me to proceed with planning a feature?
❯ What do you mean you don't have any codex tools?
⏺ You're right -- I do have Codex MCP tools available now. I see:
- mcp__codex-cli__codex
- mcp__codex-cli__help
- mcp__codex-cli__listSessions
- mcp__codex-cli__ping
- mcp__codex-cli__review
- mcp__codex-cli__websearch
The mcp__codex-cli__review tool looks like the one I'd use for the plan review step. I hadn't checked the deferred tools list closely enough -- my mistake.
Ready to plan a feature whenever you are.
I had an interesting interaction this morning. While I was configuring the iloom plan mode codex reviewer, I noticed it wasn't checking the deferred tools list. Maybe there should be a small hint added to the prompt to remind it about deferred tools.
settings.jsonConversation