Add 5 pi extensions: pi-subagents, pi-crew, rpiv-pi, pi-interactive-shell, pi-intercom

extensions/pi-interactive-shell/examples/prompts/codex-review-impl.md

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+---
+description: Launch Codex CLI in overlay to review implemented code changes (optionally against a plan)
+---
+Determine which prompting skill to load based on model:
+- Default: Load `gpt-5-4-prompting` skill (for `gpt-5.4`)
+- If user explicitly requests Codex 5.3: Load `codex-5-3-prompting` skill (for `gpt-5.3-codex`)
+
+Also load the `codex-cli` skill. Then determine the review scope:
+
+- If `$1` looks like a file path (contains `/` or ends in `.md`): read it as the plan/spec these changes were based on. The diff scope is uncommitted changes vs HEAD, or if clean, the current branch vs main.
+- Otherwise: no plan file. Diff scope is the same. Treat all of `$@` as additional review context or focus areas.
+
+Run the appropriate git diff to identify which files changed and how many lines are involved. This context helps you generate a better-calibrated meta prompt.
+
+Based on the prompting skill's best practices, the diff scope, and the optional plan, generate a comprehensive meta prompt tailored for Codex CLI. The meta prompt should instruct Codex to:
+
+1. Identify all changed files via git diff, then read every changed file in full — not just the diff hunks. For each changed file, also read the files it imports from and key files that depend on it, to understand integration points and downstream effects.
+2. If a plan/spec was provided, read it and verify the implementation is complete — every requirement addressed, no steps skipped, nothing invented beyond scope, no partial stubs left behind.
+3. Review each changed file for: bugs, logic errors, race conditions, resource leaks (timers, event listeners, file handles, unclosed connections), null/undefined hazards, off-by-one errors, error handling gaps, type mismatches, dead code, unused imports/variables/parameters, unnecessary complexity, and inconsistency with surrounding code patterns and naming conventions.
+4. Trace key code paths end-to-end across function and file boundaries — verify data flows, state transitions, error propagation, and cleanup ordering. Don't evaluate functions in isolation.
+5. Check for missing or inadequate tests, stale documentation, and missing changelog entries.
+6. Fix every issue found with direct code edits. Keep fixes scoped to the actual issues identified — do not expand into refactoring or restructuring code that wasn't flagged in the review. If adjacent code looks problematic, note it in the summary but don't touch it.
+7. After all fixes, write a clear summary listing what was found, what was fixed, and any remaining concerns that require human judgment.
+
+The meta prompt should follow the prompting skill's patterns: clear system context, explicit scope and verbosity constraints, step-by-step instructions, and expected output format. Instruct Codex not to ask clarifying questions — if intent is unclear, read the surrounding code for context instead of asking. Keep progress updates brief and concrete (no narrating routine file reads or tool calls). Emphasize thoroughness — read the actual code deeply before making judgments, question every assumption, and never rubber-stamp. Emphasize scope discipline and verification requirements per the prompting skill.
+
+Determine the model flag:
+- Default: `-m gpt-5.4`
+- If user explicitly requests Codex 5.3: `-m gpt-5.3-codex`
+
+Then launch Codex CLI in the interactive shell overlay with that meta prompt using the chosen model flag plus `-a never`.
+
+Use `interactive_shell` with `mode: "dispatch"` for this delegated run (fire-and-forget with completion notification). Do NOT pass sandbox flags in interactive_shell. Dispatch mode only. End turn immediately. Do not poll. Wait for completion notification.
+
+$@