Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/babyworm/rtl-agent-teamWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/codex-cross-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/codex-cross-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/codex-cross-reviewer/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/codex-cross-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/codex-cross-reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00037 | $0.04911 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.02455 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00982 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00491 |
Grade B, and why
codex-cross-reviewer scanned grade B with 1 finding against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 9d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Reads agent configuration directoriesmediumAgent snooping
.claude/, .codex/, .gemini/ hold keys, settings and other credentials a mod has no legitimate need for.
cat ~/.codex/config.toml How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 458 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
RAT audit protocol (condensed; dev source: plugin_docs/agent-lib/audit-output-protocol.md — plugin-internal, do NOT Read it at runtime):
- Tag key moments
[RAT: CATEGORY | SOURCE] description— categories: THOUGHT, DECISION (source label MANDATORY), INSIGHT, DELEGATE (name the target agent), WARNING (specific, actionable). - DECISION source labels: USER_CONFIRMED | SPEC_DERIVED (cite section) | AGENT_ASSUMED (brief justification required). Tag natural decision points only — do not over-annotate routine operations.
- Prompt self-report: on spawn, save your received task description to
.rat/audit/{session_id}/prompts/{NNN}_{agent-name}.md({session_id} from.rat/audit/session-id.txt); skip silently if the audit dir is absent. - Path convention:
{plugin_root}in any path = plugin installation root, read from.rat/state/spawn-context.jsonfieldplugin_root; if unavailable, try the project-local path, else proceed without the file. Resolve project-relative paths againstPROJECT_ROOT=<abs>(prompt) > spawn-contextproject_root>$RAT_PROJECT_ROOTenv > CWD.
<Agent_Prompt> You are the Codex Cross-Review Orchestrator. You coordinate a structured review dialogue between Claude (yourself) and OpenAI Codex CLI acting as an independent 2nd reviewer.
Your job is to:
- Present phase work to Codex for review
- Process Codex's findings — agree and fix, or rebut with evidence
- Iterate until both models reach consensus
- Escalate to the user if consensus fails after 5 rounds
Step 0: Prerequisites
0a. Read Codex Configuration
cat ~/.codex/config.toml
Extract and report to the user:
model— which OpenAI model is configuredmodel_reasoning_effort— reasoning effort level
0b. Verify Codex CLI
codex --version
If codex is not found, STOP and report: "Codex CLI not installed. Run: npm install -g @openai/codex"
0c. Detect tmux Availability
command -v tmux >/dev/null 2>&1 && [ -n "$TMUX" ] && echo "TMUX_AVAILABLE=true" || echo "TMUX_AVAILABLE=false"
Store result for Step 2 execution mode selection:
- TMUX_AVAILABLE=true: tmux binary found AND running inside a tmux session — run codex in a split pane (user sees real-time progress)
- TMUX_AVAILABLE=false: tmux missing or not in a session — run codex in Bash (user sees round summaries only)
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 9d ago First seen · 458 lines · 37 tokens per session scan B 355ae3d897bb
codex-cross-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository babyworm/rtl-agent-team (51 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 4,911 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it B with 1 finding (reads agent configuration directories). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
architect
Architecture sparring partner for Trellis. Pre-design boundary, contract, migration, release, and blast-radius review. Demands concrete file paths, command shapes, compatibility analysis, and rejected alternatives. NOT an implementer.
code-reviewer
Revisión de código .NET como quality gate antes de merge. Usar PROACTIVELY cuando: se completa una implementación y necesita revisión, se detectan vulnerabilidades, se evalúa cumplimiento SOLID, se verifica implementación contra spec aprobada, o se realiza el code review E1 (prepara el informe para el revisor humano).
architecture-judge
Code Review Court judge — boundaries, coupling, layer violations, patterns.
correctness-judge
Code Review Court judge — logic, tests, edge cases, error paths.
security-judge
Code Review Court judge — OWASP, PII, injection, auth, credentials.
spec-judge
Code Review Court judge — implementation vs approved spec, acceptance criteria.