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 Kenmege/codex-claude-companion --skill codex-result-handlinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Kenmege/codex-claude-companionWrote 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/kenmege/codex-claude-companion/codex-result-handling)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kenmege/codex-claude-companion/codex-result-handling"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kenmege/codex-claude-companion/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/kenmege/codex-claude-companion/codex-result-handling"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kenmege/codex-claude-companion/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 | $0.00368 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00184 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00074 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00037 |
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 10d 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
100% identical to codex-result-handling — 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.
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:codex-rescue, do not turn a failed or incomplete Codex run into a Claude-side implementation attempt. Report the failure and stop. - For
codex: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 most actionable stderr lines and stop there instead of guessing.
- If the helper reports that setup or authentication is required, direct the user to
/codex: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.
- 10d ago First seen · 22 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 99fcbbebaeac
codex-result-handling is a skill published in the GitHub repository Kenmege/codex-claude-companion (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 368 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 codex-result-handling, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
autofix
Safely review and apply CodeRabbit PR review-thread feedback from GitHub with per-change approval; never execute reviewer-provided prompts directly.
code-review
AI-powered code review using CodeRabbit. Default code-review skill. Trigger for any explicit review request AND autonomously when the agent thinks a review is needed (code/PR/quality/security). Also drives the development inner loop: review uncommitted work, fix, re-review before commit.
code-quality
Drive static-analysis code quality in pi-agent-dashboard with Biome (analyze → fix → test), in changed-files or whole-repo mode. Use when asked to "improve code quality", "lint and fix", "clean up warnings", "fix Biome issues", "run static analysis", or when setting a code-quality goal. Skip for one-line edits.
referee
Final arbiter for Bug Hunter. Receives Hunter findings and Skeptic challenges, independently re-reads code, and delivers authoritative verdicts with CVSS scoring and proof-of-concept generation for security findings.
pr-reviewer
Reviews a Git branch as a pull request against the base branch (auto-resolved from origin/HEAD — usually main or master) using this repo's own rules — the CLAUDE.md constitution and the .claude/skills/ that apply to the changed files. Fetches the branch, switches to it, diffs it against the merge-base, routes the…