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 jezweb/claude-skills --skill codex-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jezweb/claude-skillsWrote 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/jezweb/claude-skills/codex-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jezweb/claude-skills/codex-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jezweb/claude-skills/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/jezweb/claude-skills/codex-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jezweb/claude-skills/codex-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- Socket pass
- Snyk pass
- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00122 | $0.01212 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00061 | $0.00606 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00242 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00121 |
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 9d 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 — 105 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Codex Review
Run an independent code review via the OpenAI Codex CLI (codex review). The value is a second opinion from a different model family than the one that wrote the code — Codex catches things Claude misses due to author bias.
Complements brains-trust (generic multi-model opinions). This skill is specialised: git-aware, uses a tuned review prompt, saves structured output.
When to Use
- After a meaningful change, before committing or shipping
- Before opening a PR, to self-review with an independent reviewer
- When something feels off but you can't articulate what
- Periodic whole-app reviews for projects in active development
- When the user explicitly asks for an "independent" or "second opinion" review
Do NOT use for:
- Trivial changes (typos, one-line fixes)
- Research questions or architecture discussions — use
brains-trustinstead - Auto-fixing issues — this is advisory only
Preflight
-
Confirm Codex CLI is installed:
which codexIf missing: tell the user to install it (
brew install codexon macOS, or see https://github.com/openai/codex) and stop. Do not continue. -
Confirm auth: the first
codex reviewcall will fail clearly if not logged in. If that happens, instruct the user to runcodex loginand stop.
Determine scope
Pick the scope flag based on what the user asked for:
| User intent | Flag |
|---|---|
| "codex review" / "review the app" / "full review" / default | no flag (reviews whole app at current HEAD) |
| "review my changes" / "review what I just did" / "review uncommitted" | --uncommitted |
| "review this branch vs main" / "review the PR" | --base main (or the branch they name) |
| "review commit abc123" | --commit abc123 |
Default is whole-app review. A bare "codex review" with no qualifier means review the entire codebase at HEAD — not just uncommitted changes. Only use --uncommitted if the user specifically refers to their recent/uncommitted work.
If ambiguous, ask once. Don't guess on commits or branches.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 105 lines · 122 tokens per session scan A 06c31bb4e4aa
codex-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository jezweb/claude-skills (999 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 122 tokens to every session and 1,212 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-implementing
Process and implement code review feedback systematically. Use when user provides reviewer comments, PR feedback, code review notes, or asks to implement suggestions from reviews.
code-auditor
Performs comprehensive codebase analysis covering architecture, code quality, security, performance, testing, and maintainability. Use when user wants to audit code quality, identify technical debt, find security issues, assess test coverage, or get a codebase health check.
review-loop
Run the adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified"…
tech-debt-audit
Thorough, file-cited technical debt audit across 9 dimensions using AST-grep (tree-sitter), grep, LSP, and language-native tooling. Produces TECHDEBTAUDIT.md with severity, effort estimates, and prioritized fixes. Use when asked for codebase health check, tech debt audit, architecture review, code quality assessment…
boundaries
Analyze Phoenix context boundaries and module coupling via mix xref. Use when checking cross-context calls, validating dependencies, before splitting modules, or reviewing architecture.
triage
Triage review findings interactively — approve, skip, or prioritize each issue. Use after /phx:review to filter findings before fixing.