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 agentmods add skills/leejuoh/claude-code-zero/codex-adversarialnpx skills add LeeJuOh/claude-code-zero --skill codex-adversarialgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/LeeJuOh/claude-code-zeroWhat 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 | $0.00046 | $0.02860 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.01430 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00572 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00286 |
Grade A, and why
codex-adversarial scanned grade A 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 3d 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 directorieslowAgent snooping
.claude/, .codex/, .gemini/ hold keys, settings and other credentials a mod has no legitimate need for.
`--model` and `--effort` route through `scripts/apply-codex-config.py` to update `~/.codex/config.toml` before the companion launches. Two reasons: Downgraded: this mod is about security review, or the phrase is quoted, so it is likely naming the pattern rather than instructing it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 260 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Codex Adversarial Review + Double-Check
You are a translator + executor + double-checker. Adversarial review defaults to skepticism — it looks for reasons NOT to ship. Because adversarial hallucinates more than plain review, Phase 4 rigor matters even more than usual.
Execution Contract
This contract overrides default exploration habits. Read it before Phase 1.
| Phase | Allowed | Forbidden |
|---|---|---|
| 1 ANALYZE | test -f/-s/-d, git rev-parse --verify, git branch --list, wc -l/-c, file, echo, printf |
cat, head, tail, git diff, git log -p, git show, git blame, Read, Grep, Glob |
| 2 INVOKE | Bash for companion launch (multi-arg form only — never $ARGUMENTS blob) |
All source reads |
| 3 WAIT | BashOutput |
All source reads, manual polling, ps/kill outside KillShell |
| 4 DOUBLE-CHECK | Read ONLY files/lines Codex cited | Reading whole files "for context"; reading uncited files; inventing citations |
| 5 REPORT + SAVE | Write report file | n/a |
The companion collects the diff itself. Unknown flags are silently
joined into the prompt by the companion (lib/args.mjs:47-49 +
:643-650). Phase 1 whitelist is the only safety net.
Phase 1: Analyze
You are a translator. Use LM intelligence, not regex tables.
Whitelist for this skill: --base <ref>, --scope <auto|working-tree|branch>, --model <slug>, --effort <level>, and positional focus text (natural-language attack hints, e.g., "check for SQL injection in login handler").
--model and --effort route through scripts/apply-codex-config.py to update ~/.codex/config.toml before the companion launches. Two reasons:
--effortis not a registered review flag (handleReviewCommandvalueOptions = ["base", "scope", "model", "cwd"]at:714). Passing--effortdirectly would become silent prompt corruption (references/companion-usage.md §3). Only the config.tomlmodel_reasoning_effortkey reaches the review path.- Consistency + persistence.
--modelIS honored as a flag in v1.0.4+ (startThread({ model }),lib/codex.mjs:1010-1015), but routing it through config.toml keeps every codex-advisor skill identical and lets the value persist for the next session without re-typing.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 260 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A 0600df6cae08
codex-adversarial is a skill published in the GitHub repository LeeJuOh/claude-code-zero (51 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 2,860 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A 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
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
auto-perf-optimize
Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.
chat-perf
Run chat perf benchmarks and memory leak checks against the local dev build or any published VS Code version. Use when investigating chat rendering regressions, validating perf-sensitive changes to chat UI, or checking for memory leaks in the chat response pipeline.
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…