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 gitguffaw/codex-router --skill codex-result-handlinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gitguffaw/codex-routerWrote 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/gitguffaw/codex-router/codex-result-handling)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gitguffaw/codex-router/codex-result-handling"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gitguffaw/codex-router/codex-result-handling/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/gitguffaw/codex-router/codex-result-handling"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gitguffaw/codex-router/codex-result-handling.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 | $0.00018 | $0.00406 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00162 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00081 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00041 |
Grade A, and why
codex-result-handling 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 27d 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.
This is a copy
94% identical to codex-result-handling — 8 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.
What it actually says
Codex Result Handling
When the helper returns Codex output:
- Preserve the helper's verdict, summary, findings, and next steps structure.
- For review output, present findings first and keep them ordered by severity.
- Use the file paths and line numbers exactly as the helper reports them.
- Preserve evidence boundaries. If Codex marked something as an inference, uncertainty, or follow-up question, keep that distinction.
- Preserve output sections when the prompt asked for them, such as observed facts, inferences, open questions, touched files, or next steps.
- If there are no findings, say that explicitly and keep the residual-risk note brief.
- If Codex made edits, say so explicitly and list the touched files when the helper provides them.
- For
codex-router:codex-rescue, do not turn a failed or incomplete Codex run into a Claude-side implementation attempt. Report the failure and stop. - For
codex-router:codex-rescue, if Codex was never successfully invoked, do not generate a substitute answer at all. - CRITICAL: After presenting review findings, STOP. Do not make any code changes. Do not fix any issues. You MUST explicitly ask the user which issues, if any, they want fixed before touching a single file. Auto-applying fixes from a review is strictly forbidden, even if the fix is obvious.
- If the helper reports malformed output or a failed Codex run, include the blocking failure and stop there instead of guessing. Startup stderr is only
Codex is ready.or a failure that blocks Codex, such as authentication. Do not repeat MCP connection failures, launch details, or other startup errors. - If the helper reports that setup or authentication is required, direct the user to
/codex-router:setupand do not improvise alternate auth flows.
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.
- 27d ago Changed 5abadb2622c1
- 1mo ago First seen · 22 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A b81fe0e49013
codex-result-handling is a skill published in the GitHub repository gitguffaw/codex-router (2 stars, last pushed 19d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 406 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to codex-result-handling, differing in 8 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
codex-review
Use when the user asks to "review code with codex", "run a codex review", "review my changes", "review this commit", "review my branch", or wants OpenAI Codex to review code changes. Provides automated code review using the Codex CLI.
critical-code-reviewer
Rigorously review code or pull requests for correctness, security, accessibility, maintainability, tests, and edge cases. Use when users request a critical code review, want a guided walkthrough of findings, need implementer-facing feedback, or want to prepare, create, or submit a GitHub pull request review.
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
pr-review
Comprehensive PR review across six dimensions — cost impact, environment drift, ownership gaps, SOC 2 compliance, deprecated API / version hygiene, and rollback feasibility. Each mode inspects the diff and current file state, reports findings with severity, and recommends concrete fixes. Use when preparing a PR for…
genshijin-review
A compact pull-request review format that writes one actionable finding per line in Japanese or English.
pr-review
Use when the user wants to deeply review a pull/merge request or a local diff — "review this PR", "grill the MR", "stress-test this diff", "deep-dive code review", "code review before merge", or when they name a PR/MR URL, number, branch, commit range (A..B/A...B), tag or SHA. Works on GitHub (gh), GitLab (glab), or a…