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 agentmods add skills/ccarvalho-eng/codex-elixir-phoenix/elixir-phoenix-reviewnpx skills add ccarvalho-eng/codex-elixir-phoenix --skill elixir-phoenix-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ccarvalho-eng/codex-elixir-phoenixWrote 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/ccarvalho-eng/codex-elixir-phoenix/elixir-phoenix-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ccarvalho-eng/codex-elixir-phoenix/elixir-phoenix-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ccarvalho-eng/codex-elixir-phoenix/elixir-phoenix-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00018 | $0.01926 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00963 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00385 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00193 |
Grade A, and why
elixir-phoenix-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 6d 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 — 169 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Elixir/Phoenix Code
Review code by spawning parallel specialist agents. Find and explain issues — do NOT create tasks or fix anything.
Usage
`elixir-phoenix-review` # Review all changed files
`elixir-phoenix-review` test # Review test files only
`elixir-phoenix-review` security # Run security audit only
`elixir-phoenix-review` oban # Review Oban workers only
`elixir-phoenix-review` deploy # Validate deployment config
`elixir-phoenix-review` iron-laws # Check Iron Law violations only
`elixir-phoenix-review` .codex/plans/auth/plan.md # Review implementation of plan
Arguments
$ARGUMENTS = Focus area or path to plan file.
Workflow
Step 1: Identify Changed Files and Prepare Directories
CRITICAL: Create output dirs BEFORE spawning agents — agents cannot create directories and will fail repeatedly on writes.
Determine SLUG from the most recent plan directory (use rg --files on .codex/plans/*/), default to "review".
Run mkdir -p ".codex/plans/${SLUG}/reviews" ".codex/plans/${SLUG}/summaries" and mkdir -p .codex/reviews.
Then run git diff --name-only HEAD~5 and git diff --name-only main to identify changed files. Save the diff base for pre-existing detection in Step 3b.
Step 1b: Load Plan Context (Scratchpad)
If reviewing a plan, read .codex/plans/${SLUG}/scratchpad.md for
planning decisions, rationale, and handoff notes. Include relevant
decisions in each agent's prompt so they have context about WHY
code was written a certain way. This eliminates session archaeology.
Step 1c: Check Prior Reviews
If .codex/plans/${SLUG}/reviews/ has prior output, include consolidated
summary in each agent's prompt as "PRIOR FINDINGS" with instruction:
"Focus on NEW issues. Mark still-present issues as PERSISTENT."
Step 2: Create Task List and Spawn Review Agents (MANDATORY)
NEVER spawn the same agent role twice in one review. If reviewing a plan, scope ALL agents to the plan's changed files in a single pass. Do NOT run a scoped review followed by a broader review — one pass per role.
What ships with it
5 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 169 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 513844e9ff44
elixir-phoenix-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ccarvalho-eng/codex-elixir-phoenix (11 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 1,926 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
elixir-expert
Expert-level Elixir, Phoenix, OTP, and concurrent systems. Use when the user mentions Phoenix, OTP, Erlang, concurrent, or functional, or when the task involves Elixir Fundamentals or Phoenix Framework.
ash-framework
Use this skill working with Ash Framework or any of its extensions. Always consult this when making any domain changes, features or fixes.
phoenix-framework
Use this skill working with Phoenix Framework. Consult this when working with the web layer, controllers, views, liveviews etc.
phoenix
Use when building an Elixir web app with Phoenix — contexts, Ecto schemas, changesets and migrations, LiveView, channels and PubSub, the generators, and the boundary between domain logic and the web layer. Covers the classic LiveView over-rendering and Ecto N+1 traps. NOT pure OTP work with no web or Ecto layer …
writing-review-packets
Create or revise Reviews packet markdown for a code diff, including section strategy, prose, hunk references, validation, and pushing packet revisions with the Reviews CLI. Use when the user asks to write a review packet, organize a diff for review, add prose around hunk refs, update a packet for a new patchset, or…
code-review
Review code changes for regressions, correctness, and missing tests.