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 j5ik2o/okite-ai --skill auditcodexgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/j5ik2o/okite-aiWrote 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/j5ik2o/okite-ai/auditcodex)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/j5ik2o/okite-ai/auditcodex"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/j5ik2o/okite-ai/auditcodex.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00015 | $0.00762 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00381 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00152 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00076 |
Grade A, and why
auditcodex scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 5d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 40 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Codex Audit
Gather Context
Collect the recent changes for review:
- Git diff (staged + unstaged): !
git diff HEAD - Recent commits on this branch: !
git log --oneline -10 - Git status: !
git status --short
Your Task
-
Prepare a summary of what was changed by reviewing the diff and recent commits above.
-
Run the following command, replacing
<DIFF_SUMMARY>with a concise description of the changes, and piping the full diff via stdin:
git diff HEAD | codex exec --full-auto -m "gpt-5.4" -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' -c 'service_tier="fast"' -s danger-full-access -C "$(pwd)" "You are a code reviewer. The following diff is piped to your stdin. Review it for: bugs, security issues, performance problems, logic errors, and style concerns. Be specific about file names and line numbers. You can read files, run tests, search the web for relevant docs, or do whatever you need for a thorough review. If everything looks good, say so. Do a deep audit and think from first principles. Leave no question unanswered. Here is context about what changed: <DIFF_SUMMARY>"
If git diff HEAD is empty (no uncommitted changes), fall back to reviewing the last commit instead:
git diff HEAD~1 HEAD | codex exec --full-auto -m "gpt-5.4" -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' -c 'service_tier="fast"' -s danger-full-access -C "$(pwd)" "You are a code reviewer. The following diff is piped to your stdin. Review it for: bugs, security issues, performance problems, logic errors, and style concerns. Be specific about file names and line numbers. You can read files, run tests, search the web for relevant docs, or do whatever you need for a thorough review. If everything looks good, say so. Here is context about what changed: <DIFF_SUMMARY>"
- Validate every finding before presenting it. The auditor (Codex) operates with limited context. It does not know the project's vision, strategic goals, or architectural rationale. It will often invent critical issues that are misunderstandings, or overstate the severity of things that are intentional design choices. For each finding Codex returns, you MUST:
- Check the actual source code to confirm the issue is real, not a hallucination or misread.
- Check any local strategic/planning documents (e.g.
agents.md,README.md,CLAUDE.md,current_*.md, or similar docs in the repo or in a /doc/ folderDEV_JOURNAL.mdetc) to see if the finding conflicts with the stated project intent. - Ask yourself: "Is this a real bug, or is Codex misunderstanding the context?" and "Even if real, is this meaningful or is it trivial/stylistic noise?"
- If there are findings that are not both real AND meaningful, share them with the user but clearly label them and with your reasons why.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 40 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A 4fe6c4ae14cd
auditcodex is a skill published in the GitHub repository j5ik2o/okite-ai (81 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 762 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 2026-09-01.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
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.