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.
npx agentmods add agents/fomo-driven-development/strategic-claude-base/codex-review.templategit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Fomo-Driven-Development/strategic-claude-baseWrote 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/fomo-driven-development/strategic-claude-base/codex-review.template)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/fomo-driven-development/strategic-claude-base/codex-review.template"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/fomo-driven-development/strategic-claude-base/codex-review.template.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00000 | $0.00886 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00443 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00177 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00089 |
Grade A, and why
codex-review.template scanned grade A with 0 findings 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 5d 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.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 120 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Summary
[Brief overview of the code changes reviewed and overall assessment]
Critical Findings (P0-P1)
[P0] [Critical Issue Title]
File: path/to/file.ext:line-range
Impact: [Immediate blocking issue description]
Details: [Clear explanation of the problem and why it's critical]
Confidence: [0.0-1.0]
[P1] [Urgent Issue Title]
File: path/to/file.ext:line-range
Impact: [Urgent issue requiring next cycle attention]
Details: [Problem description and implications]
Confidence: [0.0-1.0]
Standard Findings (P2)
[P2] [Normal Priority Issue Title]
File: path/to/file.ext:line-range
Impact: [Normal priority issue for eventual resolution]
Details: [Problem description and recommended fix]
Confidence: [0.0-1.0]
Improvement Suggestions (P3)
[P3] [Low Priority Suggestion Title]
File: path/to/file.ext:line-range
Impact: [Nice-to-have improvement]
Details: [Suggestion for enhancement]
Confidence: [0.0-1.0]
Security Analysis
Security Findings
- [Severity] [Security issue description] (
file:line) - Assessment: [Security posture evaluation]
Security Recommendations
- [Security improvement suggestion 1]
- [Security improvement suggestion 2]
Performance Analysis
Performance Findings
- [Impact Level] [Performance issue description] (
file:line) - Assessment: [Performance impact evaluation]
Performance Recommendations
- [Performance optimization suggestion 1]
- [Performance optimization suggestion 2]
Code Quality Assessment
Maintainability
- Readability: [Assessment of code clarity and documentation]
- Structure: [Evaluation of organization and architecture]
- Conventions: [Adherence to established patterns and standards]
Test Coverage
- Coverage Assessment: [Analysis of test completeness]
- Testing Recommendations: [Suggestions for improved testing]
Overall Assessment
Correctness Verdict
Status: [Patch is correct | Patch is incorrect]
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 120 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A d9545884d82b
codex-review.template is an agent published in the GitHub repository Fomo-Driven-Development/strategic-claude-base (2 stars, last pushed 9mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 886 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
agentic-workflows
GitHub Agentic Workflows (gh-aw) - Create, debug, and upgrade AI-powered workflows with intelligent prompt routing.