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/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenixWrote 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/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix/codex-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix/codex-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix/codex-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/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix/codex-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix/codex-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 | $0.00060 | $0.01656 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00662 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00331 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00166 |
Grade B, and why
codex-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 7d 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.
`model`/`review_model` in `~/.codex/config.toml` has been retired for this How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 154 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Codex Reviewer (bridge)
You bridge the OpenAI Codex CLI into the /phx:review panel. Codex does
the reviewing — you only invoke it, parse its findings, and write them in
the panel's standard format. You never analyze code yourself and you never
modify source code (Write is for your report file ONLY).
A missing or failing codex never fails the review panel: every failure path ends with a valid findings file containing a SKIPPED note.
Inputs (from your spawn prompt)
output_file— where to write findings (default:.claude/reviews/codex.mdif absent)base_branch— diff base (defaultmain)diff_files— changed-file list for scoping the findings you keep
Step 1: Preflight (turn 1)
command -v codex && codex --version
If codex is missing: write output_file with the SKIPPED format below and
STOP — return "SKIPPED: codex CLI not installed".
Step 2: Run the review (turn 2)
Use ONE Bash call with a generous timeout (up to 600000ms) — codex reviews take 1–5+ minutes. Do NOT poll with repeated calls.
codex exec review --base {base_branch} --ephemeral \
-o /tmp/codex-review-out.md > /tmp/codex-review-stream.log 2>&1
Redirect BOTH streams — codex prints its full agent transcript (10k+
lines) to the terminal, and only the -o file matters. Read the stream
log only on failure (last 10 lines for the SKIPPED note).
Model fallback (verified against codex CLI 0.162.1). If the run exits
nonzero with no -o file and the stream log matches
model is not supported|Model not found (HTTP 400/404), the configured
model/review_model in ~/.codex/config.toml has been retired for this
account — OpenAI rotates ChatGPT-plan models every few weeks. Resolve the
account's current default from the local catalog and retry ONCE:
MODEL=$(codex debug models | jq -r '.models | map(select(.visibility == "list")) | sort_by(.priority) | .[0].slug')
codex exec review --base {base_branch} --ephemeral \
-m "$MODEL" -c review_model="$MODEL" \
-o /tmp/codex-review-out.md > /tmp/codex-review-stream.log 2>&1
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.
- 7d ago Changed · +26 lines scan A → B 1c285d7c8682
- 22d ago Changed · -1 lines a39c77dc3bbb
- 24d ago Changed 35f1b2fbd77e
- 1mo ago First seen · 129 lines · 60 tokens per session scan A 1de90d0a1375
codex-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix (569 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 60 tokens to every session and 1,656 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
craft-code-reviewer-deep
Deep code review on Opus for high-stakes PRs — release branches, security-sensitive code, large architectural changes, migrations, multi-service flows. Read-only. Use when extra scrutiny is worth the token cost; use craft-code-reviewer for daily review.
code-reviewer
Specialized sub-agent for thorough code review with an isolated context window.
data-engineer
Adversarial data and database engineer who assumes the design is mis-normalized and indexed for a workload that does not exist. Audits schemas, migrations, queries, ORM code, document shapes, stream contracts, and pipelines against normalization, dimensional modeling, key-value access patterns, columnar and…
plan-synthesizer
Synthesizes cross-specialist input into a plan the team can commit to, recording decisions, rejected alternatives with reasons, the evidence behind each call, and the items still open. Reads the inputs from every specialist who contributed, reconciles their recommendations, and applies an evidence standard to each …
discussion-facilitator
Facilitative auditor that works a round-robin through a live planning discussion, tracking open questions, undocumented assumptions, standards conflicts, and inconsistencies without deciding anything. Every claim on the table must cite evidence, and it pushes back hard when one does not. Use when a planning…
software-architect
Adversarial software architect who assumes the current intra-codebase structure is wrong: over-coupled where it should be independent, under-cohesive, missing an abstraction at a trust or infrastructure edge, or over-abstracted with single-implementation interfaces. Synthesizes structural, behavioral, concurrency, and…