Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to cgfixit/AzureAI-CopilotStudio-PersonalAgent-Instructions. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cgfixit/AzureAI-CopilotStudio-PersonalAgent-Instructions/main/.codex/commands/codex-verify.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/cgfixit/AzureAI-CopilotStudio-PersonalAgent-InstructionsWrote 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/commands/cgfixit/azureai-copilotstudio-personalagent-instructions/codex-verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/cgfixit/azureai-copilotstudio-personalagent-instructions/codex-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/cgfixit/azureai-copilotstudio-personalagent-instructions/codex-verify.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00107 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00053 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00021 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00011 |
Grade A, and why
codex-verify 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 6d 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.
What it actually says
Codex Verify
Use .codex/skills/codex-verify/SKILL.md as the source of truth for repo-local
Codex verification.
When onboarding a fresh clone or publishing .codex/ or workflow changes:
- run
python .codex/scripts/repo_audit.py verify-codex . - fix missing command wrappers, bash-only Codex docs, or workflow hardening drift
- keep manual-only GitHub settings called out explicitly instead of pretending the repo tree can prove them
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 11 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 41754c89c62b
codex-verify is a command published in the GitHub repository cgfixit/AzureAI-CopilotStudio-PersonalAgent-Instructions (1 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 107 tokens. 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 commands, from other repositories
paul:verify
Guide manual user acceptance testing of recently built features.
generate-widget
Génération Widget Flutter avec Tests.
test-suite
Run comprehensive test suite with coverage analysis.
speckit.companion.living-validate
Check the shape of living specs and a feature spec's deltas — a requirement with no scenario, a scenario missing WHEN or THEN, a duplicate heading, a delta pointing at nothing (opt-in, read-only, never halts).
golden-update
Mise à jour Golden Tests.
verify-math
Verify a self-authored mathematical result end to end by routing claims across adversarial review, numerical falsification, symbolic or CAS checks, and Lean, then aggregating one report. Use when a theorem, proposition, conjecture, or paper-wide mathematical argument needs the appropriate combination of verification…