Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add jcputney/agent-peer-review/plugin install codex-peer-reviewWrote 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/jcputney/agent-peer-review/codex-peer-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jcputney/agent-peer-review/codex-peer-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jcputney/agent-peer-review/codex-peer-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/jcputney/agent-peer-review/codex-peer-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jcputney/agent-peer-review/codex-peer-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 | $0.00084 | $0.04368 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00034 | $0.01747 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00874 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00437 |
Grade B, and why
codex-peer-review scanned grade B with 1 finding 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 2mo 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.
Reads agent configuration directoriesmediumAgent snooping
.claude/, .codex/, .gemini/ hold keys, settings and other credentials a mod has no legitimate need for.
cat > ~/.codex/peer-review.config.toml <<'EOF' How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 405 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Codex Peer Review
Symmetric two-AI peer review using OpenAI Codex CLI. Both AIs review independently, then debate per-issue with terminal states until convergence — not a one-shot validation.
Core principle: Asymmetric "validate my answer" loops anchor on the proposer's framing. Symmetric blind passes catch ~2x as many issues because each AI examines the work without priming. The debate phase then resolves conflicts deterministically via per-issue terminal states.
This is the single source of truth for the peer review protocol. The agent file is a thin dispatcher that loads this skill.
Reference Files
Read these with the exact paths below when needed — never search the filesystem for them:
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/codex-peer-review/discussion-protocol.md— debate mechanics (round-by-round prompts)${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/codex-peer-review/escalation-criteria.md— when to skip the debate and go to external research${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/codex-peer-review/common-mistakes.md— anti-patterns and recovery
Modes
| Mode | Command | When |
|---|---|---|
| blind-debate (default) | /codex-peer-review |
Symmetric blind pass + structured debate. Best signal. |
| classic (deprecated) | /codex-peer-review --mode classic |
Old single-pass validation. Cheap, weaker signal. Will be removed. |
Auto-trigger (proactive validation before presenting plans/designs/reviews) always uses blind-debate.
Codex CLI Compatibility
Tested against codex-cli 0.136.0. Hard requirements:
codex execfor ALL machine-readable output (codex reviewexposes only--base— no--json,-o, or--output-schema— so it cannot drive parseable workflows)jq(fail fast if missing — required for session ID extraction and JSONL parsing)- A configured
peer-reviewprofile file at~/.codex/peer-review.config.toml, layered via--profile peer-review(see "Codex Profile Setup" below)
Schema is enforced via prompt template, parsed with jq — not via --output-schema. (codex exec does expose --output-schema <FILE>, but the prompt-template + jq path is version-stable and avoids depending on its behavior.)
What ships with it
3 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.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 405 lines · 84 tokens per session scan B b9cafb8974c9
codex-peer-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository jcputney/agent-peer-review (34 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 84 tokens to every session and 4,368 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it B with 1 finding (reads agent configuration directories). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
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"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…