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 Lykhoyda/ask-llm/plugin install ask-llmWrote 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/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-codex-pair)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-codex-pair"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-codex-pair/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/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-codex-pair"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-codex-pair.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 | $0.00073 | $0.05980 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.02392 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.01196 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00598 |
Grade C, and why
ask-llm-codex-pair scanned grade C 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 14d 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.
Recursive force deletehighDestructive command
rm -rf with a variable or a broad path is one typo away from removing the wrong tree.
To remove: rm -rf <MARKER_DIR>/.codex-pair This is a copy
92% identical to codex-pair — 363 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 364 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Portable contract
Use Codex as an explicit read-only reviewer while the host remains the editor. Apply pairing-contract.md. Where the host supports the established per-edit integration, set up and report its status: the repository marker carries review context but is not, by itself, authorization on Pi. Preserve bounded file context, include-directory handling, reasoning effort, session continuity where supported, consent, cancellation, actionable relay, failure disclosure, and explicit host lifecycle limitations.
Host adapters
Pi adapter
Pi requires project trust, this repository marker, and explicit user-owned allowlist consent through /codex-pair. Pairing is asynchronous in TUI/RPC/long-lived JSON modes, uses tool_result, and surfaces findings non-blockingly. One-shot print mode, blocking Stop-gate parity, and nested Fable execution are unsupported.
Cursor Agent adapter
Cursor discovers this SKILL.md through its supported Agent Skills surface; /codex-pair attaches it as an explicit command. Do not use Claude Code's PostToolUse, Stop, SessionStart, SessionEnd, CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT, AskUserQuestion, or plugin tool namespaces. This adapter is an on-demand iterative pairing session, not a claim that Claude hooks were registered in Cursor.
- Read
pairing-contract.md. The Cursor plugin bundle registers only the unifiedask-llmserver; if the user separately installed@ask-llm/codex-mcp, prefer that deterministicask-codexleaf. Resolve an exposed MCP tool whose exact leaf isask-codex; do not assume its server prefix. When only the unifiedask-llmleaf is registered, it may serve as the transport withprovider: "codex"and every option (model, reasoning effort, include directories, sandbox, session) pinned explicitly; its schema rejects unsupported combinations instead of stripping them. Inspect the advertised schema before the first call: ifsandboxor another required Codex option is missing, stop and upgrade@ask-llm/mcprather than omitting the field. Never make an unpinned generic call. If neither tool is exposed, stop with the recommended user-installed unified server:
Save that as project{"mcpServers":{"ask-llm":{"command":"npx","args":["-y","@ask-llm/mcp"]}}}.cursor/mcp.jsonor user~/.cursor/mcp.json, ensurecodexis authenticated, reload the server from Cursor Settings → Tools & MCP or restart Cursor Agent, and invoke/codex-pairagain. A splitcodexentry using@ask-llm/codex-mcpis an explicit user-installed alternative when only theask-codexleaf is desired; keep one registration per server (the plugin already providesask-llm, so do not add a secondask-llmentry merely to duplicate it). - Require both
model=<exact ID>andeffort=low|medium|high|xhigh|max|ultra; parse optionalinclude=dir1,dir2. If model or effort is omitted, ask the user to confirm the pair defaultsmodel=gpt-6-solandeffort=medium, then stop before reading extra context, requesting consent, or calling a provider. Do not infer either value from the Cursor host environment: the MCP server may resolve differentASK_CODEX_MODELorASK_CODEX_REASONING_EFFORTvalues. Reject absolute,.., and~include paths; cap at 32. Build a bounded context manifest (20 KB/file, 100 KB/request) from task requirements, relevant project instructions, changed files, and tests. Do not send secrets or unrelated files. - Before the first provider call, show host=
Cursor Agent, reviewer provider=codex, selected transport=ask-codexor unifiedask-llm, exact user-supplied model, exact user-supplied reasoning effort, include directories, read-only behavior, data/quota boundary, and fresh persisted-session intent. Ask for explicit confirmation using Cursor's normal conversational approval surface. Refusal endscancelledwith no provider call. - First call exactly one of these protocol shapes, substituting the already disclosed explicit choices:
The prompt assigns Codex the independent reviewer role and requests actionable severity/file/line evidence. Capture the returned structured[ { "tool": "ask-codex", "arguments": { "prompt": "<bounded reviewer prompt>", "model": "<required exact ID>", "reasoningEffort": "<required effort>", "includeDirs": ["<validated relative directory>"], "sessionId": "", "sandbox": "read-only" } }, { "tool": "ask-llm", "arguments": { "provider": "codex", "prompt": "<bounded reviewer prompt>", "model": "<required exact ID>", "reasoningEffort": "<required effort>", "includeDirs": ["<validated relative directory>"], "sessionId": "", "sandbox": "read-only" } } ]sessionId/Thread ID and actual model. Relay feedback before changing code; verify every finding against source and label it accepted, rejected, or deferred. - At meaningful checkpoints, call the same tool with the captured
sessionId, same model/effort, and bounded delta. Keepsandbox: "read-only"on bothask-codexand unifiedask-llm. If the unified schema lackssandbox, stop and upgrade@ask-llm/mcprather than omitting it. OmitincludeDirson resumed calls becausecodex exec resumedoes not support them (every Codex transport — splitask-codex, unifiedask-llm, and Pi — rejects that combination at the shared executor instead of dropping the directories); never silently strip them from the first call. If no session ID was returned, stop with a session diagnostic instead of pretending continuity. - A Cursor interrupt cancels the MCP request. Report
cancelledand never retry another tool/model/provider. Preserve earlier feedback on later failure and reportfailed (partial). On success reportcompletedwith host, provider, requested/actual model, effort, session reuse count, context/include directories, accepted/rejected/deferred actions, and any reported Codex quota fallback. Never conceal fallback or rewrite a model.
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.
- 14d ago First seen · 364 lines · 73 tokens per session scan C a7a6c68bd768
ask-llm-codex-pair is a skill published in the GitHub repository Lykhoyda/ask-llm (18 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 73 tokens to every session and 5,980 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it C with 1 finding (recursive force delete). It is 92% identical to codex-pair, differing in 363 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…
verify-change
A change-checking skill that reviews code differences and checks whether related documentation, tests, and records were updated.
verify-module
A module-checking skill that scans a project’s folders, code, and documentation. It expects each module to include a README.md and DESIGN.md, which explain how the module is used and why it was designed that way.
verify-quality
A code-quality checker that measures complexity, size, naming, and common code smells. It reports problems such as duplicated code, unused code, and overly long functions.
red-team-review
Unified adversarial review, two modes. Strategic Matrix v4.3 (MTA-004) for arguments/plans/decisions: Priors → Rubric → Adversarial Lenses → SWOT/TOWS → MCDA → Blind Spot/Kill Switch → Summary. Deliverable Audit for built artefacts (assignments, reports, code outputs): isolated fresh-context hunt against the brief…
review-preflight
Review tooling for a PR: review-preflight prints REVIEW.md's criteria and the PR's live gate state before a review; ci-triage maps a PR's failing checks to already-filed issues.