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/extracurricular-ai/codex-rewind/remote-testsnpx skills add extracurricular-ai/codex-rewind --skill remote-testsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/extracurricular-ai/codex-rewindWhat 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 | $0.00012 | $0.00786 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00393 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00157 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00079 |
Grade A, and why
remote-tests 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.
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.
This is a copy
100% identical to remote-tests — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 107 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Remote executor tests exercise the app-server/exec-server split to ensure that agent features work in both local and remote execution environments.
Remote executor tests currently require an x86_64 Linux host machine. There are two flavors:
- Docker (Linux exec-server)
- Wine (Windows exec-server)
Test Fixtures
Individual test cases must opt-in to being run against a remote executor.
codex_core
Use TestCodexBuilder::build_with_auto_env() to opt-in to remote execution in core integration
tests unless the test needs more precise control over its executor.
app-server
Start the server with TestAppServer::new_with_auto_env() unless the test defines its own
$CODEX_HOME/environments.toml or will define custom environments at runtime.
Start threads with TestAppServer::send_thread_start_request_with_auto_env() if you've created the
server with the auto_env approach. Omit ThreadStartParams.environments (leave it as None) when
doing so.
Test Skips
If a test doesn't pass in a particular remote executor configuration you can skip it in just that configuration. Include a string reason for future readers when the selected skip macro supports one.
Choose the skip macro by what causes the test to fail:
skip_if_target_windows!: Windows target behavior.skip_if_wine_exec!: Wine-exec runner constraints.skip_if_host_windows!: Windows host constraints.skip_if_remote!: Local-only test behavior.skip_if_no_remote_env!: Remote-only test behavior.
Prefer defining tests that run in all host/target configurations by default. See the $path-types
skill for the most common changes required to make tests compatible.
Docker
Docker container is built and initialized via ./scripts/test-remote-env.sh. Sourcing this script
in bash also provides the codex_remote_env_cleanup function to use after testing.
To run core integration tests against a Docker remote executor:
bash -c '
set -euo pipefail
unset CODEX_TEST_REMOTE_EXEC_SERVER_URL
source scripts/test-remote-env.sh
trap codex_remote_env_cleanup EXIT
cd codex-rs
just test -p codex-core --test all
'
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.
- yesterday First seen · 107 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A 5029f27ab93f
remote-tests is a skill published in the GitHub repository extracurricular-ai/codex-rewind (44 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 786 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to remote-tests, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
fast-resume
Search local coding-agent session history and identify safe resume commands. Use when the user asks to find, inspect, continue, or recover previous work from Claude Code, Codex, Pi, or another agent indexed by fast-resume.
intuitive-tests
Use this skill whenever the user asks about unit test best practices, test organization, flat test suites, redundant tests, test refactors, pytest/JUnit/Jest/xUnit layout, test taxonomy, flaky tests, coverage quality, fixtures, mocks, parametrization, pruning existing UTs, or "which tests are worth keeping." It…
intuitive-flow
Stable execution/change router after an approved plan, preflight contract, or tiny concrete task. Refactor-shaped work delegates to intuitive-refactor, and durable work runs through staged planning, review, GSD handoff, implementation, cleanup, and verification while keeping plan ledgers and active capsules compact by…
intuitive-preflight
Turn a vague task, plan, issue, or "LGTM/go ahead" request into an approval-ready preflight contract before implementation starts. Use when the user wants prompt preflight, clearer scope, non-goals, context package, acceptance criteria, definition of done, verification, stop gates, the exact execution command, or…
intuitive-squash
Squash local GSD or agent-generated commit history into a clean, reviewable story while preserving important fixes. Use when the user asks to squash commits, clean git history, compress phase commits, prepare a branch before PR, compare aggressive vs moderate squash options, or preserve hotfix/security commits during…
cross-review
Challenge an existing agent proposal through a small bounded set of independent review perspectives, then judge the findings into one simpler or more defensible recommendation. Use immediately after an agent proposes a solution when the user asks whether there is a simpler approach, wants a second opinion or other…