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 anhnguyen0905/codex-mcp --skill review-dualgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/anhnguyen0905/codex-mcpWrote 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/anhnguyen0905/codex-mcp/review-dual)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/anhnguyen0905/codex-mcp/review-dual"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/anhnguyen0905/codex-mcp/review-dual/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/anhnguyen0905/codex-mcp/review-dual"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/anhnguyen0905/codex-mcp/review-dual.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 | $0.00024 | $0.01543 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00772 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00309 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00154 |
Grade A, and why
review-dual 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 yesterday.
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 — 94 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Dual Review (Codex + Claude)
Give every task TWO independent reviews: Claude reviews with the review-conformance, review-quality, and review-security skills; Codex reviews via mcp__codex__codex_review in a fresh read-only session so it never grades its own homework. Compare both reviews and select the optimal resolution supported by evidence.
Codex reviewer role (focus block)
Paste this template into the focus parameter of mcp__codex__codex_review. Without checkpoint commits, each per-task mcp__codex__codex_review sees the cumulative uncommitted diff, so the focus block MUST name and enforce the task's Files: scope:
Role: Act as an independent senior reviewer.
Task: <task id> — <task title>
Acceptance criteria: <paste the task's acceptance criteria>
Files: <paste the task's Files: list>
Review only the task's Files: list; report no findings outside it.
Review in this exact order:
1. Conformance to the task's .codex-flow/CONTEXT-T<n>.md slice and acceptance criteria.
Treat [verify]-stamped context as hypotheses to re-confirm against the current code before relying on it.
Read full .codex-flow/PLAN.md only as escalation when a finding disputes plan intent.
2. Quality: correctness hazards, silent failures, edge cases, and test quality.
3. Security: secrets, injection, validation, and unsafe patterns.
Output numbered findings tagged CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, or LOW.
For every finding, give file:line plus expected vs observed behavior.
Then add a SEPARATE `## Improvements` section.
Tag non-blocking suggestions IMP-1, IMP-2, ...: worthwhile refactors, better naming, missing nice-to-have tests, or documentation gaps that are not defects.
Pass the task's scope, and route out-of-scope findings to the ledger
Call mcp__codex__codex_review with scope: { files: <the task's Files: list>, contract: <the PLAN Contracts the task lists> } alongside focus. The server appends the contract and the file
list to the reviewer prompt and stamps each returned finding with inScope, counting the rest in
reviewFindings.outOfScopeCount.
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.
- yesterday Changed · +12 lines a3a6abca2899
- 2d ago Changed · +4 lines 7f9a96fa8e31
- 7d ago Changed · +20 lines a75af14e9f12
- 11d ago First seen · 58 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A 8df354e869b9
review-dual is a skill published in the GitHub repository anhnguyen0905/codex-mcp (3 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 1,543 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 skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…