Codex Design Consultation

🎯 Purpose

設計段階でのCodex相談: Consult with Codex before making complex design decisions. Get expert validation, alternative approaches, and risk assessment early in the development process.

📋 When to Use

Mandatory Triggers

• Introducing implementation patterns NOT found in existing codebase
• Architecture decision with 3+ viable options
• Performance-critical implementations (high-traffic endpoints, real-time processing, etc.)
• Major refactoring affecting multiple modules
• New technology/framework introduction
• Security-sensitive design (authentication, authorization, cryptography)

Optional but Recommended

• Database schema design for new features
• API design for public/external consumption
• Distributed system component design
• Complex algorithm implementation

🔄 Consultation Flow

Step 1: Problem Analysis

Claude Code analyzes the design problem:

- Current situation and constraints
- Requirements (functional and non-functional)
- Existing codebase patterns
- Performance/security requirements
- Team expertise and maintenance considerations

Step 2: Generate Design Options

Claude Code proposes 2-3 viable approaches:

## Option 1: [Approach Name]
**Pros:**
- [Advantage 1]
- [Advantage 2]

**Cons:**
- [Drawback 1]
- [Drawback 2]

**Implementation Complexity:** Low/Medium/High
**Maintenance Cost:** Low/Medium/High
**Performance Impact:** Low/Medium/High

## Option 2: [Approach Name]
...

## Option 3: [Approach Name]
...

Step 3: Codex Consultation

Execute Codex in read-only sandbox for design review:

codex exec --sandbox read-only "$(cat <<'EOF'
# Design Consultation Request

## Context
[プロジェクトの概要と現在の状況]

## Problem Statement
[解決したい問題の詳細な説明]

## Constraints
- Performance: [パフォーマンス要件]
- Security: [セキュリティ要件]
- Scalability: [スケーラビリティ要件]
- Maintainability: [保守性要件]
- Team: [チームのスキルセット]
- Timeline: [スケジュール制約]

## Proposed Design Options

### Option 1: [アプローチ名]
[詳細な説明]

**Pros:**
- [メリット1]
- [メリット2]

**Cons:**
- [デメリット1]
- [デメリット2]

### Option 2: [アプローチ名]
[詳細な説明]
...

### Option 3: [アプローチ名]
[詳細な説明]
...

## Existing Codebase Patterns
[既存のコードベースで使用されているパターン]

## Questions for Codex

1. 各アプローチの妥当性評価
2. 見落としている潜在的な問題点
3. 推奨されるアプローチとその理由
4. 実装時の注意点
5. 類似プロジェクトでの成功/失敗事例

## Required Output Format (JSON in Japanese)

以下のJSON形式で回答してください:

{
  "recommended_option": "Option 1|Option 2|Option 3|Alternative",
  "reasoning": "推奨理由の詳細説明(日本語)",
  "risk_assessment": {
    "option_1": {
      "technical_risks": ["リスク1", "リスク2"],
      "mitigation": ["対策1", "対策2"]
    },
    "option_2": { ... },
    "option_3": { ... }
  },
  "additional_considerations": [
    {
      "category": "performance|security|maintainability|scalability",
      "point": "考慮すべき点(日本語)",
      "importance": "critical|high|medium|low"
    }
  ],
  "alternative_approach": {
    "description": "代替アプローチの説明(Option 1-3以外に良い方法があれば)",
    "why_better": "なぜこちらが良いか"
  },
  "implementation_guidance": [
    "実装時のガイダンス1",
    "実装時のガイダンス2"
  ],
  "similar_patterns": [
    {
      "project": "類似プロジェクト名",
      "approach": "採用されたアプローチ",
      "outcome": "結果(成功/失敗とその理由)"
    }
  ],
  "confidence": "high|medium|low",
  "caveats": ["注意事項1", "注意事項2"]
}
EOF
)"

Step 4: Analysis and Synthesis

Claude Code analyzes Codex's response:

• Evaluate recommendation validity
• Consider project-specific context
• Synthesize with existing codebase patterns
• Identify any conflicting advice

Step 5: Present to User

Present comprehensive analysis to user for final decision:

## 設計相談結果: [問題のタイトル]

### 問題概要
[解決したい問題の簡潔な説明]

### 提案した設計オプション
1. **Option 1**: [概要]
2. **Option 2**: [概要]
3. **Option 3**: [概要]

### Codex推奨
- **推奨アプローチ**: Option 2
- **信頼度**: High
- **推奨理由**:
  [Codexの推奨理由を日本語で説明]

### リスク評価

#### Option 1: [名前]
- **技術的リスク**:
  - [リスク1]
  - [リスク2]
- **リスク軽減策**:
  - [対策1]
  - [対策2]

#### Option 2: [名前] ⭐ 推奨
- **技術的リスク**:
  - [リスク1]
- **リスク軽減策**:
  - [対策1]

#### Option 3: [名前]
- **技術的リスク**:
  - [リスク1]
  - [リスク2]
- **リスク軽減策**:
  - [対策1]

### 追加考慮事項

#### Critical
- [重要な考慮点1]

#### High
- [高優先度の考慮点1]
- [高優先度の考慮点2]

#### Medium
- [中優先度の考慮点1]

### 代替アプローチ (Codex提案)
[Codexが提案した代替案があれば]

**なぜ良いか**: [理由]

### 実装ガイダンス
1. [実装時の注意点1]
2. [実装時の注意点2]
3. [実装時の注意点3]

### 類似プロジェクトの事例
- **プロジェクト**: [名前]
  - **アプローチ**: [採用手法]
  - **結果**: [成功/失敗の理由]

### 注意事項
- [注意事項1]
- [注意事項2]

### Claude Codeの所見
[Codexの推奨を踏まえた、プロジェクト固有の考察]

どのアプローチで進めますか? または、さらに詳細を検討しますか?

🔍 Specific Use Cases

Use Case 1: Database Schema Design

## Problem
新しいマルチテナント機能のためのデータベース設計

## Options
1. Single database with tenant_id column
2. Database per tenant
3. Schema per tenant (PostgreSQL)

[Codex consultation...]

## Codex Recommendation
Option 3 (Schema per tenant) for this scale
- Reasoning: Balance of isolation and management
- Risk: Schema migration complexity
- Mitigation: Use migration tool like Flyway

Use Case 2: API Design Pattern

## Problem
新しいマイクロサービス間のAPI設計

## Options
1. REST with JSON
2. gRPC
3. GraphQL

[Codex consultation...]

## Codex Recommendation
Option 2 (gRPC) for internal services
- Reasoning: Type safety, performance, streaming support
- Risk: Steeper learning curve
- Mitigation: Start with simple unary calls, add streaming later

Use Case 3: State Management

## Problem
React アプリケーションの状態管理

## Options
1. Redux Toolkit
2. Zustand
3. Jotai

[Codex consultation...]

## Codex Recommendation
Option 2 (Zustand) for this project size
- Reasoning: Simplicity, less boilerplate, sufficient for current needs
- Risk: Might need migration if app grows significantly
- Mitigation: Keep state logic modular for easier migration

🚨 Error Handling

Codex Timeout

• Wait up to 10 minutes (10 polls)
• If timeout: Present options to user without Codex input
• Explain that consultation couldn't complete

Codex API Failure

• Retry once after 5 seconds
• If retry fails: Proceed with Claude Code's analysis only
• Inform user that external validation unavailable

Conflicting Recommendations

• If Codex recommendation contradicts project constraints
• Claude Code highlights the conflict
• Provides reasoning for both perspectives
• Lets user make informed decision

📊 Output Quality Indicators

High Confidence Output

• Clear recommendation with strong reasoning
• Multiple supporting examples
• Specific implementation guidance
• Risk assessment with mitigations

Low Confidence Output

• Multiple viable options with trade-offs
• Insufficient context for firm recommendation
• Suggests gathering more information
• Recommends prototyping or spike

🔧 Configuration Parameters

Parameter	Default	Description
timeout_minutes	10	Codex consultation timeout
min_options	2	Minimum design options to present
max_options	4	Maximum design options to present
require_risk_assessment	true	Require risk analysis for each option
include_examples	true	Include similar project examples

🎯 Success Criteria

Consultation is successful when:

• ✅ Codex provides clear recommendation
• ✅ All options have risk assessment
• ✅ Implementation guidance provided
• ✅ User has sufficient information to decide
• ✅ Potential pitfalls identified

📝 Best Practices

Before Consultation

1. Clearly define the problem and constraints
2. Research existing patterns in codebase
3. Identify at least 2 viable options
4. Document non-functional requirements

During Consultation

1. Wait for complete Codex response
2. Validate recommendations against project context
3. Identify any missed considerations
4. Synthesize with project-specific knowledge

After Consultation

1. Document the decision and rationale
2. Update architecture documentation if needed
3. Share decision with team
4. Reference consultation in implementation

⚠️ Important Reminders

1. Use early - Consult before writing code, not after
2. Be specific - Provide detailed context and constraints
3. Consider context - Codex doesn't know your project specifics
4. Final decision - Human makes the final call, not AI
5. Document - Record the decision for future reference
6. Output in Japanese - All user-facing text in Japanese