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/tornikegomareli/claude-plugin-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/tornikegomareli/claude-plugin-codex/adversarial-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/tornikegomareli/claude-plugin-codex/adversarial-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/tornikegomareli/claude-plugin-codex/adversarial-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/tornikegomareli/claude-plugin-codex/adversarial-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/tornikegomareli/claude-plugin-codex/adversarial-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 | $0.00032 | $0.00485 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00194 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00097 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00049 |
Grade A, and why
adversarial-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 2mo 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
Run an adversarial Claude Code review that questions the chosen implementation, design tradeoffs, and hidden assumptions.
Raw slash-command arguments:
$ARGUMENTS
Core constraint:
- This command is review-only.
- Do not fix issues, apply patches, or suggest that you are about to make changes.
- Your only job is to run the review and return Claude's output verbatim to the user.
Locating the companion script:
- The companion script is
scripts/claude-companion.mjsinside this plugin's root directory (the installedclaudeplugin directory that contains.codex-plugin/plugin.json). - Always invoke it with an absolute path.
Execution mode rules:
- If the raw arguments include
--wait, do not ask. Run in the foreground. - If the raw arguments include
--background, do not ask. Run with--background. - Otherwise, estimate review size the same way as
@claude review(git status and shortstat checks), recommend waiting only for clearly tiny changes, and ask the user exactly once, in plain conversation, with the recommended option first and marked "(Recommended)":- Wait for results
- Run in background
Argument handling:
- Preserve the user's arguments exactly, including any trailing focus text.
- The focus text steers the adversarial review; pass it through unchanged.
Foreground flow:
- Run:
node "<plugin-root>/scripts/claude-companion.mjs" adversarial-review "$ARGUMENTS"
- Return the command stdout verbatim, exactly as-is.
Background flow:
- Run the same command with
--backgroundappended. - After launching, tell the user: "Claude adversarial review started in the background. Check
@claude statusfor progress."
Sandbox requirements:
- The companion spawns the
claudeCLI, which needs network access to reach the Anthropic API. - If the sandbox blocks the command or Claude reports a connection error, rerun the same shell command with escalated permissions and explain why in the justification.
- Do not work around a sandbox denial by improvising your own review or edits; the command's value is Claude's independent output.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 45 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A c7c11501bac4
adversarial-review is a command published in the GitHub repository tornikegomareli/claude-plugin-codex (9 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 485 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
refactor
Systematic code refactoring with smart scope detection.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
spec-trace-requirements
You are verifying that implementation changes trace back to specification requirements.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
boot
Start a new PromptKit prompt assembly session (alias for /bootstrap).