docs: simplify codex cli

[cmungall]

Summary

• streamline Codex CLI documentation for non-technical curators

Testing

• PYENV_VERSION=3.10.17 python -m pytest
• PYENV_VERSION=3.10.17 python -m mkdocs build (fails: No module named mkdocs)
• PYENV_VERSION=3.10.17 python -m pip install mkdocs (fails: Could not find a version that satisfies the requirement mkdocs)

---

https://chatgpt.com/codex/tasks/task_e_689fdfbf3164832f93629efa1d7b1d9b

[claude]

Claude finished @cmungall's task —— View job

---

Pull Request Review

I've reviewed the documentation simplification changes in this PR. Here's my comprehensive feedback:

Todo List:

• Read and analyze the modified documentation file
• Review git diff to understand what content was removed
• Assess documentation quality and provide constructive feedback
• Post comprehensive review via GitHub comment

Review Feedback

Overall Assessment: Good simplification with minor concerns

The PR successfully achieves its goal of streamlining the Codex CLI documentation for non-technical curators. The changes transform a developer-focused document into a concise, accessible overview.

Strengths:

1. Excellent clarity improvement: The new content is much more accessible to non-technical users
2. Focused messaging: Directly addresses the target audience (non-technical curators)
3. Appropriate length: Eliminates overwhelming technical details that could intimidate curators
4. Clear value proposition: Explains what the tool does in simple terms

Areas for Consideration:

1. Missing essential information: The removal of installation instructions may be problematic. Even non-technical curators may need to know how to install the tool. Consider adding a simple installation section.

2. Link accuracy concern: The GitHub URL points to https://github.com/openai/codex, but based on the content and context, this appears to be about Claude Code, not OpenAI's Codex. This should be verified and corrected if needed.

3. Alternative options removed: While the community forks section was detailed, completely removing alternatives might limit curator options. Consider a brief mention of alternatives if relevant.

Content Quality:

• Writing quality: Excellent - clear, concise, and jargon-free
• Target audience alignment: Perfect fit for non-technical curators
• Information hierarchy: Well-structured and logical

Suggestions for Enhancement:

1. Add minimal installation guidance:

   ## Getting Started
   Installation instructions available at [project repository](URL)

2. Verify/correct URLs: Ensure the GitHub link points to the correct repository

3. Consider adding a "Learn More" section with a link to full documentation for users who need more details

Security & Performance:

• No security concerns (documentation only)
• No performance implications
• No test coverage needed for documentation

Conclusion:

This is a well-executed simplification that achieves its stated goal. The documentation is now much more approachable for non-technical curators. With minor additions for installation guidance and URL verification, this will be an excellent improvement to the documentation.

Recommendation: Approve with minor suggested enhancements.

---