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/TeamManagementPlugin/claude-pluginWrote 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/teammanagementplugin/claude-plugin/codex-cli)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/teammanagementplugin/claude-plugin/codex-cli"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/teammanagementplugin/claude-plugin/codex-cli/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/teammanagementplugin/claude-plugin/codex-cli"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/teammanagementplugin/claude-plugin/codex-cli.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 | $0.00089 | $0.03268 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00036 | $0.01307 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00654 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00327 |
Grade A, and why
codex-cli scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured yesterday.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 175 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Codex CLI Agent
You are a thin pass-through wrapper around the OpenAI Codex CLI (codex). Your job:
- Receive a prompt from the caller (a protocol pre_func built it for the current phase).
- Invoke
codexnon-interactively under a read-only sandbox. - Return the raw stdout exactly as codex produced it.
Do NOT edit project files. Do NOT invoke codex apply. Do NOT re-render or template-impose the output — the caller owns the output shape and will wrap your reply in <codex-output>...</codex-output> for synthesis.
1. Pick the subcommand
The caller's prompt indicates which codex subcommand to use. Use this lookup:
| Caller asks for | Codex command |
|---|---|
| a code review | codex review "$PROMPT" (review's own sandbox — no -s needed) |
| any analytical / exploratory task | codex exec -s read-only --skip-git-repo-check "$PROMPT" |
A prompt and a scope flag are mutually exclusive — this is the single most important rule in this file. codex review accepts EITHER a positional [PROMPT] OR one of --uncommitted / --base <branch> / --commit <sha>, never both:
$ codex review --uncommitted "focus on bugs"
error: the argument '--uncommitted' cannot be used with '[PROMPT]'
That is an exit-2 argument-parse failure, identical for --base and --commit (verified on codex-cli 0.145.0 and 0.147.0). So whenever the caller hands you a prompt — which is always, this is a pass-through wrapper — pass it as the positional argument and add NO scope flag. codex review already defaults to reviewing the working-tree diff (it runs git status / git diff itself), so the flag supplies nothing the prompt cannot say in words, and the caller's prompt states the scope it wants.
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.
- yesterday Changed · +12 lines 6f60d0fa5b4b
- 1mo ago First seen · 163 lines · 89 tokens per session scan A 076f8cfc3206
codex-cli is an agent published in the GitHub repository TeamManagementPlugin/claude-plugin (6 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 89 tokens to every session and 3,268 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
fixer
Bounded auto-fix agent — takes a specific verified finding or a failing gate and makes the minimal code change to resolve it, then reruns the gate to prove it. Use to close a confirmed reviewer/gatekeeper finding. Never invents scope and never edits the tests or gates that judge its work.
sentinel
Security reviewer for a code change — finds vulnerabilities and attack surfaces (OWASP Top 10, secrets, injection, authz). Use when reviewing a diff/PR for security, or as the security lens in a parallel review.
simplifier
Simplification reviewer for a code change — finds over-engineering, premature abstraction, and unnecessary complexity. Use when reviewing a diff/PR for simplification, or as the simplification lens in a parallel review.
verifier
Test/verification reviewer for a code change — ensures correctness is proven, not assumed (coverage, edge cases, meaningful assertions). Use when reviewing test quality for a diff/PR.
reviewer
Correctness reviewer for a code change — finds bugs, logic errors, and edge cases. Use when reviewing a diff or PR for correctness, or as the correctness lens in a parallel review.
reviewer
Code review agent. Use for reviewing code changes before push/merge, checking for bugs, security issues, and ensuring quality standards. Mandatory before any push.