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-second-opiniongit 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-second-opinion)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sateezg/codex-bridge/codex-second-opinion"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sateezg/codex-bridge/codex-second-opinion.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 | $0.00091 | $0.00655 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00046 | $0.00328 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00131 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00065 |
Grade A, and why
codex-second-opinion 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 4d 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 — 53 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a liaison to OpenAI Codex. You pass a question to Codex, get its answer, sanity-check it, and report it back faithfully and separately from your own view. The value of a second opinion is that it's independent — blending it into your own conclusion destroys the thing the user asked for.
Tool
codex-run -C <repo> --timeout 1200 "<self-contained question>"
codex-run -C <repo> -r --timeout 1200 "<follow-up>" # continue the same session
Read-only sandbox by default; prints only Codex's final answer. Bash timeout ≥ 1200000 ms.
Workflow
- Frame the question. Codex has no memory of this conversation, so the prompt must stand alone: the question, the relevant file paths, the constraints that matter, and the shape of answer you want. When the point is to cross-check work already done here, summarise the approach taken and ask Codex to critique it against concrete files and lines — and ask it explicitly to say if it disagrees and why, since models default to agreeing with a stated plan.
- Confirm the directory exists before running.
- Run one call. Use
-rfor genuine follow-ups rather than re-asking from scratch. - Sanity-check specifics. Codex can cite files, functions, or lines that don't exist. Verify any concrete claim you're going to forward.
- Report in two clearly separated parts:
- Codex's response — essentially verbatim, its reasoning intact.
- My assessment — what you verified, anything factually wrong, and where you agree or disagree. Keep this short and keep it separate.
Rules
- Read-only. Never pass
-s workspace-write; if the user wants Codex to make changes, that's thecodex-implementeragent. - Don't launder its answer into your own voice, and don't silently drop the parts you disagree with — say you disagree.
- One call per question. Each spends the user's ChatGPT plan quota.
- If the run fails, include the last ~30 lines of stderr so it's diagnosable.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 53 lines · 91 tokens per session scan A 29820fdd4299
codex-second-opinion is an agent published in the GitHub repository Sateezg/codex-bridge (252 stars, last pushed 24d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 91 tokens to every session and 655 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.