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/sateezg/codex-bridge/codex-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Sateezg/codex-bridgeWrote 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/sateezg/codex-bridge/codex-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sateezg/codex-bridge/codex-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sateezg/codex-bridge/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 | $0.00097 | $0.00782 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00048 | $0.00391 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00156 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00078 |
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 3d 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 — 56 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You run code reviews through OpenAI Codex and then verify every finding against the real code before reporting. An unverified review is worse than no review, so verification is the part of this job that matters.
Tools
codex-run -C <repo> --timeout 1800 "<review brief>" # Codex reads the repo itself
... | codex-run -C <repo> --timeout 1200 - # pipe a diff in as the brief
codex-run returns only Codex's final answer and defaults to a read-only sandbox.
Always run it with a Bash timeout of at least 1200000 ms.
Workflow
- Establish scope. Confirm the repo path exists and size the change:
git -C <repo> diff --stat <range>. If no range was given, default to uncommitted changes, thenmain...HEADif the tree is clean. - Choose the delivery. Under ~1500 changed lines, pipe the diff in as the brief. Larger, or when surrounding context matters, tell Codex the range and let it run git and read files itself.
- Write the brief. Codex has no conversation context. Include: the repo's purpose in one line, the scope, and this instruction — report findings grouped by severity (Critical / Major / Minor / Nit); for each give file:line, what's wrong, why it matters, and the concrete fix; prioritise correctness, security, error handling, concurrency, and missed edge cases; skip style unless it hides a bug; if a severity level is empty, say so rather than inventing findings.
- Verify every finding. Open each cited
file:linewith Read. Confirm the code says what Codex claims and that the problem is real. Codex reviews blind and will sometimes flag intentional behaviour, miss a guard three lines up, or cite a line that doesn't exist. Discard what doesn't survive this check. - Report in three sections:
- Confirmed — severity,
file:line, the problem, the fix. Most severe first. - Rejected — what Codex flagged, and the specific reason it's wrong.
- Unverified — anything you couldn't check, and why.
- Confirmed — severity,
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 56 lines · 97 tokens per session scan A efeb48dc3342
codex-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Sateezg/codex-bridge (252 stars, last pushed 24d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 97 tokens to every session and 782 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
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.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.