absolute-path-review-prompt-dispatch
Prevent adversarial review dispatch failures caused by relative prompt paths, superseded background sessions, and stale completion notices when launching Codex/Gemini review jobs.
Best use case
absolute-path-review-prompt-dispatch is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Prevent adversarial review dispatch failures caused by relative prompt paths, superseded background sessions, and stale completion notices when launching Codex/Gemini review jobs.
Teams using absolute-path-review-prompt-dispatch should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/absolute-path-review-prompt-dispatch/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How absolute-path-review-prompt-dispatch Compares
| Feature / Agent | absolute-path-review-prompt-dispatch | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Prevent adversarial review dispatch failures caused by relative prompt paths, superseded background sessions, and stale completion notices when launching Codex/Gemini review jobs.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
Related Guides
Best AI Skills for Claude
Explore the best AI skills for Claude and Claude Code across coding, research, workflow automation, documentation, and agent operations.
Cursor vs Codex for AI Workflows
Compare Cursor and Codex for AI coding workflows, repository assistance, debugging, refactoring, and reusable developer skills.
SKILL.md Source
# Absolute-Path Review Prompt Dispatch Use when launching adversarial plan/code reviews through background `codex exec` or `gemini exec` jobs. ## When this skill applies - You write a review prompt to `.planning/quick/*.md` - You launch Codex/Gemini in background mode with `terminal(background=true, pty=true)` - You need review artifacts to remain trustworthy even if an earlier dispatch attempt fails ## Core problem A review prompt file can exist in the repo, but a background shell may still fail to resolve a relative path like: `codex exec "$(cat .planning/quick/review-342-prompt.md)"` Observed failure: - `cat: .planning/quick/review-342-prompt.md: No such file or directory` This can happen even when the file exists under the intended workdir. Once you recover and relaunch successfully, Hermes may still deliver stale completion notices for the earlier failed session. ## Reliable pattern ### 1. Write the prompt into the real workspace Use `terminal()` or another real-filesystem write path so the shell can read it. ### 2. Verify existence before dispatch Run a real-shell check such as: - `pwd` - `find . -maxdepth 3 -type f | grep 'review-342'` - `ls -la .planning .planning/quick` ### 3. Launch with absolute paths Prefer absolute prompt and output paths: ```bash codex exec "$(cat /abs/path/to/review-342-prompt.md)" \ 2>&1 | tee /abs/path/to/review-342-codex.out gemini exec "$(cat /abs/path/to/review-342-prompt.md)" \ 2>&1 | tee /abs/path/to/review-342-gemini.out ``` This avoids cwd drift and ambiguous shell context in background runs. ### 4. Treat the first successful recovered run as canonical If the original run fails and you relaunch: - kill the failed process if still running - save artifacts only from the recovered canonical run - ignore later stale completion notices from superseded sessions ### 5. Record unavailable providers explicitly If Gemini/Codex never yields a substantive review, save a canonical artifact with: - verdict: `UNAVAILABLE` - concrete failure reason - raw log path - operational decision taken ## Minimal recovery workflow 1. Background run fails with relative-path `cat` error 2. Confirm prompt file actually exists on disk 3. Kill the failed background session 4. Relaunch with absolute prompt path + absolute tee path 5. Wait/poll the new session only 6. Save the canonical review artifact(s) 7. Ignore stale system completion messages for the abandoned session ## Pitfalls - Relative prompt paths can fail in background shells even when the repo workdir looks correct - A stale completion notification can arrive after you already saved the real review result - Raw background logs are not the durable artifact; always write the final canonical review file under `scripts/review/results/` ## Good signs - `find`/`ls` show the prompt file before launch - background command uses absolute paths for both `cat` and `tee` - later system notifications do not change the already-saved canonical outcome
Related Skills
plan-review-prompt-refresh-after-plan-edits
Refresh reviewer prompt files from the latest on-disk plan before every adversarial re-review. Prevents Codex/Gemini from critiquing stale plan text after local edits.
tdd-verification-and-adversarial-review
Verify pre-written TDD tests pass, conduct adversarial code review on committed diffs, and route findings to existing issues
python-import-path-mismatch-debugging
Diagnose and fix ModuleNotFoundError when a package is installed but imports still fail due to environment/path mismatches
python-import-path-debugging
Diagnose ModuleNotFoundError when a package is installed but still fails to import
multi-role-agent-contract-review-pipeline
Execute a 4-role agent team (Planner/Architect/Reviewer/Integrator) pipeline for self-reviewing knowledge artifacts before delivery
label-driven-prompt-generation-architecture
Pattern for building automation scripts that classify GitHub issues into prompt templates using label-based routing and extract contextual data for batch processing
gsd-adversarial-review-pattern
Catch hidden test failures by running adversarial review on sparse-data edge cases before final push
agent-team-prompt-generation
Create self-contained execution prompts that define multi-role workflows for Codex sessions without external dependencies
adversarial-code-review-tdd
Systematic adversarial review pattern to identify breaking assumptions in already-passing test suites
adversarial-code-review-for-committed-diffs
Systematic process for reviewing already-committed code changes to catch type inconsistencies, edge cases, and docstring gaps
adversarial-code-review-and-fix
Systematic pattern for catching design flaws in already-passing code through adversarial review, then fixing them with TDD confirmation.
learned-git-worktree-hook-path-and-real-hook-shape-review
Catch hook-installation and governance bugs that only appear in linked git worktrees or against the real generated hook shape, not simplified test fixtures.