alt Hacker News> Can't you simply ask codex in another tab to just do a code review?
You are likely to get better results if you do not use the same model for review that wrote the code. I typically use Opus for code editing and GPT 5.5 for peer review using an automation with skills.
Training set is different between models. If there are gaps in coverage in one model, you want a different model reviewing the work. The second model will its own gaps, but the gap list is not identical.
Replies
Results also depend on the prompt. You get different results if you ask to review the PR and focus on particular file than if you don't make it focus.
Or if you make it "be a security engineer" with particular focus points.
Or make it a grammar nazi, it will find way more typos than without such focus.
Of course all of those "focuses" needs to be in a separate context (agent/subagent) to make it work.
I would suggest that you reverse those roles. gpt-5.5 as the implementer and Opus as the reviewer.
> You are likely to get better results if you do not use the same model for review that wrote the code
There’s no evidence of this. I guess you are anthropomorphising models (i.e., it’s good that - different human reviews your code)