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 eugeniosegala/claude-connoisseur --skill codex-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/eugeniosegala/claude-connoisseurWrote 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/eugeniosegala/claude-connoisseur/codex-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/eugeniosegala/claude-connoisseur/codex-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eugeniosegala/claude-connoisseur/codex-review/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/eugeniosegala/claude-connoisseur/codex-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eugeniosegala/claude-connoisseur/codex-review.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 | $0.00021 | $0.01016 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00508 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00203 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00102 |
Grade A, and why
codex-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 11d 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 — 91 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Codex Review
When invoked, send the relevant context — plans, approaches, code, or any combination — to codex CLI for an independent review.
Files and instructions: $ARGUMENTS
What to review
This skill covers both code and plans/approaches:
- Plans/Approaches: Architecture decisions, implementation strategies, proposed approaches before starting work
- Code: Code you've written, modified, or are considering changing — diffs, file contents, implementation details, proposed changes
- Both together: A plan alongside the code that implements it
Adapt what you send based on what the user asks Codex to review.
How to interpret arguments
The arguments are free-form and flexible. They may contain:
- Natural language describing what to review: "review my current plan", "review the last commit"
- File references alongside instructions:
@auth.ts review this file for security issues - Scope instructions: "review the approach and the implementation together"
Parse the arguments to determine what context to gather and send to Codex.
Examples
/codex-review review my current plan— review the plan from the current conversation/codex-review review the code I just wrote— review recent code changes/codex-review review the approach and the implementation together— review both plan and code/codex-review @auth.ts review this file for security issues— review a specific file with focus/codex-review review the last commit— review the most recent commit diff
How to proceed
- Gather context: Collect the relevant material to send for review based on what the user asked. Match the scope of what you send to the scope of the ask — if the user points at a single function, send that function and its immediate dependencies, not the entire file history or conversation. A quick opinion needs adequate context; a full architecture review needs more.
- For a targeted question (specific file, function, or snippet): Send only the relevant code and enough surrounding context for Codex to understand it (e.g. types, imports, direct callers). Skip git history, conversation recaps, and unrelated files
- For plan/approach review: Include the plan text or approach description, plus the key files it affects (entry points, schemas, interfaces) — not the entire codebase it touches
- For code review of recent changes: Include the diff (
git diff) and a brief description of intent — not every file in the repo - For broad reviews ("review the architecture", "review everything I've done"): Include more context, but summarise where possible rather than dumping raw content
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 91 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A abba5b2373a5
codex-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository eugeniosegala/claude-connoisseur (9 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 1,016 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…