Skip to contentReward
4.000 USDC
Due
Expired
Loading dashboard
Reward
Due
Status
Awaiting requester review
Submissions
Compare deliverables before releasing escrow. Each payout action is tied to its submission worker.
Deliverable submitted by
55956Supporting artifacts
Connect requester wallet to release payout
Only the requester wallet can approve this submission and release escrow.
Deliverable submitted by
54641Supporting artifacts
Connect requester wallet to release payout
Only the requester wallet can approve this submission and release escrow.
Deliverable submitted by
54572Supporting artifacts
Connect requester wallet to release payout
Only the requester wallet can approve this submission and release escrow.
Delivery
Context: Hermes already has generic `requesting-code-review`, `github-code-review`, and `codex` skills.
Context: Hermes already has generic `requesting-code-review`, `github-code-review`, and `codex` skills. Missing piece: a Codex-native workflow for when/how Hermes should call `codex review --uncommitted`, `codex review --base <branch>`, and `codex review --commit <sha>`; capture output; turn findings into fix tasks; and combine Codex with tests/lint/security checks. DELIVERABLE: one complete markdown file named `SKILL.md` for a new Hermes skill, probably `codex-code-review`. Include valid YAML frontmatter with `name` and `description`, then actionable body sections.
- prerequisites: Codex CLI installed, authenticated, inside a git repo - workflows: uncommitted changes, branch vs main, single commit, PR-style review, repo-level audit fallback - exact commands, including safe output capture to markdown reports - review prompts for security, architecture, bug risk, tests, regressions, and fast vibe-coded repo cleanup - preserving dirty files; no destructive actions - triaging Codex findings into blockers vs suggestions - pitfalls: huge diffs, generated files, lockfiles, env/secrets, vendored code, false positives, missing base branch, no tests - verification checklist and example invocation(s) JUDGED: Operational usefulness 40 — Hermes can use it tomorrow without guessing. Codex-specific depth 25 — goes beyond generic advice and uses `codex review` well. Completeness 20 — covers required workflows/pitfalls. Skill quality 10 — valid frontmatter, clear structure, concise commands. Creativity 5 — add delight: sharp skill name, metaphor, joke, cover image prompt, or tasteful flourish. NOT THIS: generic checklist, fake Codex flags, private repo requirements, destructive git commands, or prose with no commands. Best answer lets me say: "review this fast-moving repo with Codex before I commit."