---
docType: review
layer: project
reviewType: slice
slice: codex-agent-integration
project: squadron
verdict: CONCERNS
sourceDocument: project-documents/user/slices/124-slice.codex-agent-integration.md
aiModel: minimax/minimax-m2.7
status: complete
dateCreated: 20260326
dateUpdated: 20260326
---

# Review: slice — slice 124

**Verdict:** CONCERNS
**Model:** minimax/minimax-m2.7

## Findings

### [PASS] Correct Protocol implementation

The `CodexProvider` implements the `AgentProvider` Protocol (`provider_type`, `create_agent()`, `validate_credentials()`), and `CodexAgent` implements the `Agent` Protocol (`name`, `agent_type`, `state`, `handle_message()`, `shutdown()`). The dependency direction is correct: core engine and message bus remain provider-agnostic.

### [PASS] Multi-provider registration pattern

The slice follows the documented provider registration pattern: Codex registers as `"codex"` provider in the provider registry at import time, consistent with how Anthropic, OpenAI, and SDK providers are added. This aligns with the architecture's "adding a new LLM provider should require only implementing the Protocol and registering the provider."

### [PASS] Credential management autonomy

The `CodexAuthStrategy` manages its own authentication independently, matching the architecture's stated pattern: "Squadron does not attempt to unify authentication. Each provider's credential resolution is self-contained." The dual-path resolution (API key or `~/.codex/auth.json`) is appropriate given Codex's two auth models.

### [PASS] Provider categorization alignment

The architecture defines two provider categories: SDK agents (autonomous, file access, tool use) and API agents (conversational, stateless). Codex as an agentic system with sandbox file access maps to the SDK category intent, not the stateless API category. The Python SDK path is correctly positioned as primary.

### [CONCERN] Review system integration bypasses provider abstraction

The review system adds an explicit third path for "codex" (`if profile == "codex": return await _run_codex_review(...)`) rather than routing through a unified provider abstraction. This creates a subtle coupling between the review system and specific provider types — the review system must know which providers are agentic (sdk, codex) versus stateless. This deviates from the architecture's principle that "the core engine never depends on provider internals." The review system is part of the orchestration layer and should ideally route through a consistent abstraction rather than embedding provider-type awareness.

### [CONCERN] Incomplete verification of dependency slices

The slice references `auth-strategy-credential-management` (slice 114) and `agent-registry-lifecycle` (slice 102) as dependencies. The slice design would benefit from explicit confirmation that `AuthStrategy` Protocol definitions from slice 114 are finalized and compatible with the `CodexAuthStrategy` implementation, and that `Agent` and `AgentProvider` Protocol definitions from slice 102 support the transport-agnostic pattern described (Python SDK vs MCP client). Without access to these dependent slice designs, full alignment cannot be verified.
