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/Zts0hg/codexspecWrote 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/zts0hg/codexspec/review-plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/zts0hg/codexspec/review-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/zts0hg/codexspec/review-plan/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/zts0hg/codexspec/review-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/zts0hg/codexspec/review-plan.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 | $0.00021 | $0.03096 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.01238 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00619 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00310 |
Grade A, and why
review-plan 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 12d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 249 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Plan Reviewer
Language Preference
Read .codexspec/config.yml. Two independent language controls apply (each falls back to language.output, then English):
- Interaction language (
language.interaction): language for all conversation with the user — questions, explanations, status messages, andcodexspecCLI terminal output. - Document language (
language.document): language for generated artifact files (requirements/spec/plan/tasks).
Converse in the interaction language and author artifacts in the document language. Apply the project's translation standard to both: translate by meaning (not word-for-word), keep English for terms with no good native equivalent, and write as if originally in that language.
Expression Standard
IMPORTANT: Everything this command produces — documents, reviews, reports, commit messages, diagnostics, and replies — is written for a reader who cannot see your working context. Apply the rules below to every artifact and message you output:
- Write for the reader at hand-off. Every reference must resolve without access to this session: no session-only identifiers or section numbers, no narration of what changed during the conversation, no arguments with absent reviewers. State current reality and cite committed, reachable sources.
- Preserve every proposition. Before summarizing or trimming, list the facts a passage carries: actors, conditions, ordering, modalities (must, never), negative guarantees, and consequences. Remove only reasoning transcripts, repetition, and decoration. Shorter is not clearer if any fact is lost.
- State what the surface requires. Diagnostics name what failed, which rule was violated, and the correction. Problem reports carry the defect, its location, its impact, and the evidence. Decisions record the alternatives they beat. Rejections give the reason in one line. Shipped work is described in the present tense; plans and open questions are labeled as such.
- Define terms before relying on them. Prefer the concrete rule, field, or behavior over a coined label; give a project-specific term a plain-language definition at first use, then use it consistently.
- Be honest, not agreeable. Verify claims before accepting them; fix or rebut on technical grounds. One substantiated blocker is worth more than a list of nitpicks. When a decision is needed, present only viable options, recommend one, and state the real difference between them.
- Declare what is binding. Say explicitly which instructions are hard requirements and where judgment is required. Keep one explanation in one place and link to it, but keep at the point of use the contract a reader needs there.
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.
- 12d ago Changed · +5 tokens per session ea48c39ad449
- 18d ago Changed · +16 lines 300509379b14
- 19d ago Changed · +15 lines 628c482391d3
- 25d ago Changed · +72 lines a82ae04db8bd
- 1mo ago Changed · +11 lines f0c68762f7fc
- 2mo ago First seen · 135 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A 46c1645b30b8
review-plan is a command published in the GitHub repository Zts0hg/codexspec (6 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 3,096 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
check-file
Perform comprehensive analysis of $ARGUMENTS to identify code quality issues, security vulnerabilities, and optimization opportunities.
review
Review code changes against project conventions.
python-review
Comprehensive Python code review for PEP 8 compliance, type hints, security, and Pythonic idioms. Invokes the python-reviewer agent.
review-uv-script
Review uv Python script for PEP 723 compliance and best practices.
views
Create Django views with proper structure and best practices.
python-review
Comprehensive Python code review for PEP 8 compliance, type hints, security, and Pythonic idioms. Invokes the python-reviewer agent.