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 chenrui333/codex-docs --skill review-agentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/chenrui333/codex-docsWrote 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/chenrui333/codex-docs/review-agent)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/chenrui333/codex-docs/review-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/chenrui333/codex-docs/review-agent/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/chenrui333/codex-docs/review-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/chenrui333/codex-docs/review-agent.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 | $0.00048 | $0.01211 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00484 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00242 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00121 |
Grade A, and why
review-agent 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 — 66 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Agent
Inspect the requested target directly and return every finding that the author would likely fix. Do not modify files, create commits, push branches, post review comments, or delegate the review to another agent.
Review the change
- Read the applicable
AGENTS.mdinstructions. - Inspect the complete diff for the requested target and enough surrounding code to understand each changed path.
- Identify concrete regressions introduced by the change. Continue through the whole diff after finding the first issue.
- Check the relevant tests and call sites to confirm that each finding is real and actionable.
For a base-branch review, compare the changes that would actually merge rather than diffing
directly against the branch tip. Resolve the comparison ref to the branch's upstream when that
upstream exists and is ahead of the local branch; otherwise use the local branch. Run
git merge-base HEAD <comparison-ref>, then inspect git diff <merge-base-sha>. If the local
branch cannot be resolved, try its configured upstream explicitly before reporting that the target
is unavailable.
Flag an issue only when all of these are true:
- It affects correctness, security, performance, or maintainability in a meaningful way.
- It is discrete and actionable.
- It was introduced by the reviewed change.
- The affected scenario or call path can be demonstrated from the code.
- The author would probably fix it if they knew about it.
Do not flag speculative concerns, pre-existing problems, intentional behavior changes, or style nits that do not obscure the code.
Write the result
Present findings first, ordered by severity. Use one entry per issue in this form:
[P1] Imperative finding title — path/to/file.rs:line
Follow the title with one short paragraph explaining the affected scenario and why the behavior is wrong. Keep the cited range as small as possible and make sure it overlaps the reviewed diff.
Use these priorities:
P0: universal release blocker or critical failure.P1: urgent defect that should be fixed next.P2: ordinary defect that should be fixed.P3: low-impact issue that is still worth fixing.
What ships with it
1 file 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 Changed e49f2be8dd5c
- 13d ago Changed 9e4df848f4cf
- 14d ago Changed cca7c7c7c349
- 15d ago Changed 292aa029109a
- 17d ago Changed ce3116fed145
- 20d ago Changed 65ed850f75b4
- 22d ago Changed b475fefa28e6
- 23d ago Changed b77cb574507d
- 24d ago Changed 6ffc3edc54e7
- 26d ago First seen · 66 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A 60b5eccd1844
review-agent is a skill published in the GitHub repository chenrui333/codex-docs (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 1,211 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
review-code
Review code changes for correctness defects, regressions, security risks, data-integrity problems, concurrency hazards, and missing meaningful tests. Use for pull requests, branches, commits, patches, or working-tree reviews; do not use for implementation unless the user separately requests fixes.
review-security
Review application and infrastructure changes for exploitable security risks by tracing assets, trust boundaries, attacker-controlled input, authorization, sensitive data, and dangerous sinks. Use for security reviews, threat-focused PR reviews, authentication or authorization changes, input handling, secrets…
evidence-review
Review a small code or documentation change and return only evidence-backed correctness findings. Use in the Codex How To local plugin lab; do not modify files or post remote comments.
agent-skill-release-review
Review a Codex, Claude Code, or agent skill/plugin before public release. Use when the user wants to assess trigger quality, folder structure, documentation, validation gaps, GitHub readiness, or OSS release quality for an agent extension.
pr-reviewer
Review a pull request for correctness, regressions, and missing tests. Use when a mid-level developer needs structured review guidance.
iac-reviewer
Review infrastructure-as-code changes for safety and correctness. Use when a mid-level developer needs a second look on IaC.