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 Arystos/skill-codex --skill codex-bridgegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Arystos/skill-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/skills/arystos/skill-codex/codex-bridge)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/arystos/skill-codex/codex-bridge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/arystos/skill-codex/codex-bridge/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/arystos/skill-codex/codex-bridge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/arystos/skill-codex/codex-bridge.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 | $0.00176 | $0.03051 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00070 | $0.01220 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00035 | $0.00610 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00305 |
Grade A, and why
codex-bridge 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 218 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Codex Bridge
This skill turns OpenAI Codex into a peer engineer you can delegate bounded implementation work to, and a second reviewer you can call for independent code review or technical consultation. It uses the codex_exec MCP tool provided by the skill-codex MCP server.
When to use this skill
Load this skill automatically when the user's request matches any of the following patterns:
Delegation triggers (use delegate workflow below):
- "implement X" / "write a function that X" / "create a script that X"
- "generate tests for X" / "add unit tests" / "scaffold tests"
- "port X to Y" / "convert X to Y" / "rewrite X in Y"
- "refactor this file" (single-file, clear target)
- "write a migration" / "create boilerplate for X"
- Any bounded, single-file or small multi-file code task with a clear spec
Review triggers (use review workflow below):
- "review my changes" / "review this diff" / "code review"
- "second opinion on this code" / "independent review"
- "check this for bugs" / "audit this for security issues"
- Before committing critical code (auth, payments, crypto, concurrency)
Consult triggers (use consult workflow below):
- "what do you think about this approach"
- "is this the right way to do X"
- "second opinion on my plan"
- Debugging when Claude has failed 3+ times on the same issue
When NOT to use this skill
Skip Codex and do the work yourself when:
- Task is <50 lines and faster to do directly
- Task requires deep conversation context Codex won't have
- Cross-module architectural refactor
- Ambiguous requirements needing user clarification
- Planning, brainstorming, or design decisions (Claude handles these)
- User explicitly asks you to do the work yourself
Workflows
Workflow 1: Delegate implementation (delegate)
Use when the user asks for a bounded implementation task with a clear spec.
Steps:
- Verify the task is well-scoped. If the request is vague, ask one clarifying question before delegating. A good delegation prompt has: exact file paths, specific change required, constraints (language, style, naming), and a clear "done" condition.
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 · 218 lines · 176 tokens per session scan A 54e085e29446
codex-bridge is a skill published in the GitHub repository Arystos/skill-codex (6 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 176 tokens to every session and 3,051 once invoked, about $0.0007 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 skills, from other repositories
memstack-development-code-reviewer
Use this skill when the user says 'review code', 'code review', 'check my code', 'audit this', 'review PR', 'review changes', 'what's wrong with this', or is requesting a structured review of code quality, security, performance, or maintainability. Do NOT use for refactoring plans or test generation.
clean-code
Clean, maintainable, human-readable code principles combined with anti-over-engineering discipline: naming, single responsibility, DRY, and scoping changes to exactly what was requested. Use when writing new code, refactoring existing code, reviewing code for quality, or deciding how much abstraction a change actually…
pr-review
Focused pull request review practices with severity-ranked, file-and-line-cited findings across four angles: security, performance, tests, and architecture. Use when asked to review a pull request, review a diff or set of changes, review "this PR," or provide a code review before merge.
shard
Use when the user says 'shard this', 'split file', or when working with files over 1000 lines.
design-patterns
Detect, suggest, and evaluate GoF design patterns in TypeScript/JavaScript codebases. Use when refactoring code, applying singleton/factory/observer/strategy patterns, reviewing pattern quality, or finding stack-native alternatives for React, Angular, NestJS, and Vue.
eval-skills
Audit a project or library of skills for metadata, trigger boundaries, workflow completion criteria, local resource closure, instruction economy, tool scope, effort, and routing evidence. Use before shipping skills, after importing a skill collection, or when a skill triggers too often or not at all.