codex

A routing guide for sending requests that explicitly mention Codex to the appropriate Codex command, such as code review or general task handling.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it when a user asks Codex to review code, inspect changes, compare work, or perform another Codex task.
Why use it?
It helps distinguish what the request is asking Codex to do and applies rules for safe command use and handling of sensitive information.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/dropfan/claude-code-plugins/codex
Any agent
npx skills add DropFan/claude-code-plugins --skill codex
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/DropFan/claude-code-plugins

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Per session 170 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 822 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00170 $0.00822
Opus 5 $0.00085 $0.00411
Sonnet 5 $0.00034 $0.00164
Haiku 4.5 $0.00017 $0.00082

Measured yesterday against content hash 8c77e9a657ae, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

codex 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.

The scan reads SKILL.md. This mod also ships 1 executable file (scripts/codex-exec.sh), listed below but not scanned — reading those needs a real analyzer, not pattern matching.

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.

plugins/codex-bridge/skills/codex/SKILL.md · 65 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 65 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Codex Bridge

Route user requests to the appropriate Codex command. Commands handle context collection, prompt composition, and result analysis autonomously.

Safety

  • Default sandbox: read-only. Only use workspace-write on explicit user request.
  • Forbidden flags: --dangerously-bypass-approvals-and-sandbox (and its alias --yolo), --full-auto, --sandbox danger-full-access
  • Never pass secrets (API keys, tokens, passwords) in Codex prompts.

Intent Classification & Routing

Classify the user's request and invoke the matching command. When the intent is ambiguous (e.g., "codex check this"), look at conversation context — if the user was just editing code and has uncommitted changes, lean toward review; otherwise default to general task.

Review Intent → /codex-bridge:codex-review

Trigger when the request is about reviewing code changes, diffs, commits, or PRs.

Keywords: review, 审查, check changes, 看看改动, code review, PR review, diff review, check my code, 看看代码

Examples:

  • "让 codex review 我的改动" → /codex-bridge:codex-review
  • "codex 审查一下这个 PR" → /codex-bridge:codex-review
  • "ask codex to review changes against main" → /codex-bridge:codex-review main
  • "codex check my latest commit" → /codex-bridge:codex-review HEAD

Pass any branch name, commit SHA, or review instructions as arguments.

General Task → /codex-bridge:codex

Trigger for all other requests: analysis, verification, second opinion, document review, task delegation.

Keywords: analyze, verify, explain, compare, delegate, check, 分析, 验证, 看看, 帮忙看

Examples:

  • "让 codex 分析这个函数的错误处理" → /codex-bridge:codex "分析...的错误处理"
  • "ask codex about the auth implementation" → /codex-bridge:codex "analyze the auth implementation"
  • "codex 帮我看看这个插件的安全性" → /codex-bridge:codex "review the security of this plugin"

Pass the user's full request as the argument. The command will resolve context and compose the prompt.

Ambiguous Cases

When the user's intent could match either command:

  • If the user mentions "changes", "diff", "commit", or "PR" → review
  • If the user mentions a specific file or function to analyze → general task
  • If still unclear, ask the user: "Would you like Codex to review your recent changes, or analyze something specific?"

Read the full file on GitHub · 65 lines

Files

What ships with it

2 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.

Changes

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.

  1. yesterday First seen · 65 lines · 170 tokens per session scan A 8c77e9a657ae

Subscribe to this mod's changes

codex is a skill published in the GitHub repository DropFan/claude-code-plugins (7 stars, last pushed 26d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 170 tokens to every session and 822 once invoked, about $0.0009 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.