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.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 5.1 | $0.00060 | $0.01195 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00598 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00239 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00120 |
Grade A, and why
codex-reviewer 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 8d 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 — 129 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 must NEVER fail 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).
Rules (verified against codex CLI 0.142.5):
- NEVER pass a custom-instructions prompt together with
--base/--uncommitted— the CLI rejects the combination. The Elixir rubric comes from the project'sAGENTS.md## Review guidelines(codex reads it automatically). - If there is no merge base (fresh repo), fall back to
--uncommitted. - Exit code is 0 even when findings exist — parse the output file, never the exit code.
Step 3: Parse findings
The last message (-o file) has this shape:
{summary paragraph}
Full review comments:
- [P1] {title} — {absolute_path}:{start}-{end}
{body paragraph}
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.
- 8d 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 (539 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 60 tokens to every session and 1,195 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
craft-code-reviewer-deep
Deep code review on Opus 4.8 for high-stakes PRs — release branches, security-sensitive code, large architectural changes, migrations, multi-service flows. 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.
tech-lead
Ensures technical consistency, reviews architecture decisions, mentors engineers, and owns ADR process. Leads code reviews for readability/LGTM culture. Balances feature velocity with technical health. Use when reviewing major architecture decisions, creating RFCs, writing ADRs, mentoring engineers, or aligning teams…
appsec-engineer
Performs application security audits using SAST, dependency scanning, OWASP Top 10 analysis, and code review security lens. Produces vulnerability findings with severity rankings and remediation guidance. Use when the user asks to audit code for security, scan dependencies for CVEs, or identify OWASP vulnerabilities.
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 …