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/Kenmege/codex-claude-companionWrote 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/kenmege/codex-claude-companion/deep-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/kenmege/codex-claude-companion/deep-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/kenmege/codex-claude-companion/deep-review/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/commands/kenmege/codex-claude-companion/deep-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/kenmege/codex-claude-companion/deep-review.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 | $0.00020 | $0.00485 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00243 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00097 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00049 |
Grade A, and why
deep-review 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 9d 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
/claude-review:deep-review
Preflight
- Prefer the helper binary
codex-claudeif it is available on PATH. - If it is not available, tell the user to install the helper with
npm install -g codex-claude-companionafter npmjs publish, or from a cloned checkout withnpm install -g ..
Plan
Runs the deepest review lane: agentic by default, Opus alias at max effort,
with the parent reviewer authorized to dispatch up to four parallel Task
sub-agents for fanned-out exploration. Sub-agents inherit the same read-only
tool allowlist and contribute back into the structured report under
evidence[].source.
Default budget cap is $25 USD (override with --max-budget-usd <n>).
Commands
Use the exact argument tail the user supplied after
/claude-review:deep-review.
- Preferred:
codex-claude deep-review <user-arguments>
Useful flags:
--backgroundstrongly recommended for deep reviews on large diffs.--max-budget-usd <n>adjusts the spend cap.--mcp-config <file-or-json>to attach repo-specific MCPs (e.g. Linear, Sentry, GitHub).--add-dir <path>to grant tool access to sibling repos.--system-prompt-extra <text>to inject workspace-specific reviewer guidance (e.g., codified review checklists).
Keep this command read-only. The agent and any sub-agents are restricted to read-only tools.
Verification
If the helper exits non-zero, report that failure exactly and stop.
Summary
Return the helper stdout verbatim. The structured output includes verdict, ship recommendation, systemic risks, findings (with evidence and tool-call citations), verified claims, blind spots, exploration log, and next steps.
Next Steps
If the user wants only the security lens, suggest
/claude-review:security-review. For shorter, single-agent passes, suggest
/claude-review:elite-review or /claude-review:adversarial-review.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 60 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A b5a3918a0744
deep-review is a command published in the GitHub repository Kenmege/codex-claude-companion (2 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 485 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
lint
Check the project for naming, security and best-practice issues.
pi-code-review
Adversarial code review via Codex — break confidence in changes, not validate them.
pi-fact-check
Fact-check content via Gemini search + Claude verification — cross-provider claim validation.
pi-askall
Ask both Codex and Gemini the same question — get three perspectives with Claude synthesis.
pi-ask-gemini
Ask Gemini a question — get Google's perspective alongside Claude's.
conventions-check
Check AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, and the projected agent artifacts (skills, subagents, commands) against the repo's conventions.