Codex plugin for Claude Code brings Codex into Claude Code so users can request code reviews or delegate tasks from that existing workflow. It is for Claude Code users with a ChatGPT subscription or OpenAI API key who want commands for reviews, handoffs, background jobs, and session management. The catalogue entries are the plugin's commands, skills, hooks, and agent.
Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add openai/codex-plugin-cc/plugin install codexWrote 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/openai/codex-plugin-cc/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/openai/codex-plugin-cc/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/openai/codex-plugin-cc/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/openai/codex-plugin-cc/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/openai/codex-plugin-cc/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 | $0.00010 | $0.00746 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00298 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00149 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00075 |
Grade A, and why
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 1mo 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.
Copies of this mod
8 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- review — 94% identical, 10 lines differ
- review — 91% identical, 18 lines differ
- review — 88% identical, 18 lines differ
- review — 88% identical, 18 lines differ
- review — 88% identical, 18 lines differ
- review — 88% identical, 18 lines differ
- review — 86% identical, 18 lines differ
What it actually says
Run a Codex review through the shared built-in reviewer.
Raw slash-command arguments:
$ARGUMENTS
Core constraint:
- This command is review-only.
- Do not fix issues, apply patches, or suggest that you are about to make changes.
- Your only job is to run the review and return Codex's output verbatim to the user.
Execution mode rules:
- If the raw arguments include
--wait, do not ask. Run the review in the foreground. - If the raw arguments include
--background, do not ask. Run the review in a Claude background task. - Otherwise, estimate the review size before asking:
- For working-tree review, start with
git status --short --untracked-files=all. - For working-tree review, also inspect both
git diff --shortstat --cachedandgit diff --shortstat. - For base-branch review, use
git diff --shortstat <base>...HEAD. - Treat untracked files or directories as reviewable work even when
git diff --shortstatis empty. - Only conclude there is nothing to review when the relevant working-tree status is empty or the explicit branch diff is empty.
- Recommend waiting only when the review is clearly tiny, roughly 1-2 files total and no sign of a broader directory-sized change.
- In every other case, including unclear size, recommend background.
- When in doubt, run the review instead of declaring that there is nothing to review.
- For working-tree review, start with
- Then use
AskUserQuestionexactly once with two options, putting the recommended option first and suffixing its label with(Recommended):Wait for resultsRun in background
Argument handling:
- Preserve the user's arguments exactly.
- Do not strip
--waitor--backgroundyourself. - Do not add extra review instructions or rewrite the user's intent.
- The companion script parses
--waitand--background, but Claude Code'sBash(..., run_in_background: true)is what actually detaches the run. /codex:reviewis native-review only. It does not support staged-only review, unstaged-only review, or extra focus text.- If the user needs custom review instructions or more adversarial framing, they should use
/codex:adversarial-review.
Foreground flow:
- Run:
node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/codex-companion.mjs" review "$ARGUMENTS"
- Return the command stdout verbatim, exactly as-is.
- Do not paraphrase, summarize, or add commentary before or after it.
- Do not fix any issues mentioned in the review output.
Background flow:
- Launch the review with
Bashin the background:
Bash({
command: `node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/codex-companion.mjs" review "$ARGUMENTS"`,
description: "Codex review",
run_in_background: true
})
- Do not call
BashOutputor wait for completion in this turn. - After launching the command, tell the user: "Codex review started in the background. Check
/codex:statusfor progress."
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 62 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A 4e333e9172e5
review is a command published in the GitHub repository openai/codex-plugin-cc (34,386 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 746 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
speckit.spex.submit
Push and create PR for team review, with optional watch mode for CI monitoring.
git
The pre-finish status: branch, hygiene findings, message checks, workflow lint, template state.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
release-tag
Create and push a version tag after a release PR has been merged.
factory
Linha de montagem multi-agente (Software Factory) — spec-writer → builder em worktree isolado → 4 revisores paralelos (Security, Code, UI, UX) → approver com gate de risco e dashboard visual.
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.