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.
npx skills add akshan-main/review-by-opp --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/akshan-main/review-by-oppWrote 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/skills/akshan-main/review-by-opp/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/akshan-main/review-by-opp/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/akshan-main/review-by-opp/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/skills/akshan-main/review-by-opp/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/akshan-main/review-by-opp/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 | $0.00034 | $0.01210 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00605 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00242 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00121 |
Grade A, and why
review-by-opp: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 11d 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 — 84 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are running a Codex review round. Codex is the auditor - it reviews, you do not edit during this step.
What to do
-
Verify session exists:
- Read
reviews/current.json. If missing, tell user: "No active session. Run/review-by-opp:startfirst."
- Read
-
Determine review scope:
- Check
reviewScopein config (fromreviews/current.jsonor.review-by-opp.json):"diff"- include the git diff in the audit prompt for context"changed-files"- include full content of changed files"changed-files-plus-tests"- changed files plus related test files"full-repo"- review the entire repository (Codex reads all files via sandbox)
- For
diff,changed-files, andchanged-files-plus-tests: checkgit diff --name-onlyfirst. If no changes, tell user: "No changes to review. Make code changes first." - For
full-repo: skip the diff check - Codex reviews everything
- Check
-
Increment round:
- Update
current_roundin the ledger
- Update
-
Write context file for Codex:
- Write
reviews/context.mdso Codex has full project context despite being stateless. Include:- Project summary: what the project does (read from README or package.json description)
- Tech stack: languages, frameworks, key dependencies
- What changed this session: summary of changes made since session started (from git log/diff)
- Previous findings (if round > 1): list all findings from prior rounds with their current status (open/fixed/etc), so Codex knows what was already flagged and can verify fixes
- User notes: any message the user passed as arguments — could be concerns, questions, hints, or areas to investigate
- Keep it concise — this is context, not a full dump. Aim for under 200 lines.
- Write
-
Build the audit prompt:
- Base prompt: instruct Codex to review the code for bugs, security issues, performance problems, and code quality
- Always instruct Codex to first read
reviews/context.mdfor project context and previous findings - For
diffscope: include the git diff output in the prompt - For
changed-filesscope: include the full file contents of changed files - For
full-reposcope: instruct Codex to read and review all source files in the repository - If the user provided arguments, include them verbatim as a user note to Codex. This can be anything — concerns ("I think the auth flow might be wrong"), questions ("is this SQL query safe?"), hints ("check the retry logic in worker.ts"), or general direction. Examples:
/review-by-opp:review I think the error handling in api.ts might be wrong/review-by-opp:review check if the rate limiter actually works under concurrency/review-by-opp:review is it ok to use eval here or is there a safer way
- Always instruct Codex to output findings in the format:
FINDING: {"title":"...","severity":"...","category":"...","file":"...","line":...,"description":"...","suggested_fix":"..."}
-
Run Codex review:
- Execute Codex in auditor-only mode with a read-only sandbox:
- Base form:
npx @openai/codex exec --sandbox read-only "<audit prompt>" - If model override is configured, include
--model <model> - If reasoning override is configured, include
-c model_reasoning_effort=<effort>
- Base form:
- Keep default behavior inherited when overrides are not configured.
- Capture the full output
- Execute Codex in auditor-only mode with a read-only sandbox:
-
Parse findings:
- Extract lines starting with
FINDING:and parse the JSON - For each finding, assign an ID like
f-{round}-{short-uuid} - Set status to
open - Deduplicate against existing findings (same file + title + category within 5 lines = duplicate)
- Extract lines starting with
-
Update ledger:
- Add new findings to
reviews/current.json - Write round snapshot to
reviews/rounds/round-{N}.json - Write summary to
reviews/summaries/summary-{N}.json
- Add new findings to
-
Run verification checks (if configured):
- If
rerunChecksis true in config, run available checks (test, lint, typecheck) - Report results
- If
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 84 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 16491c52ae36
review-by-opp:review is a skill published in the GitHub repository akshan-main/review-by-opp (6 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 1,210 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 skills, from other repositories
flow-next-impl-review
Carmack-level implementation review of changes via the configured backend. Use when asked to review code or a diff in a flow-next repo.
flow-next-spec-completion-review
Verify that a spec's completed tasks fully implement the spec requirements. Use at spec completion before close.
flow-next-plan-review
Carmack-level review of a flow-next spec or plan via the configured backend. Use when asked to review a plan or spec.
flow-next-resolve-pr
Resolve PR review feedback. Fetches unresolved threads, triages, fixes, replies and resolves via GraphQL. Use when asked to address review comments.
flow-next-worktree-kit
Manage git worktrees (create/list/switch/cleanup) and copy .env files. Use for parallel feature work, isolated review, clean workspace, or when user mentions worktrees.
pr
Comprehensive PR/issue review - analyzes architecture, tests, identifies unrelated changes mixed in, drafts review comment or issue comment. Use when user asks to review a PR, check a PR, look at PR changes, or comment on an issue.