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-ack)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-codex-pair-ack"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-codex-pair-ack/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-ack"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-codex-pair-ack.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 | $0.00052 | $0.00962 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00385 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00192 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00096 |
Grade A, and why
ask-llm-codex-pair-ack 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 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.
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
97% identical to codex-pair-ack — 68 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 — 69 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Portable contract
Acknowledge one finding by its 16-character concern hash with a non-empty user reason. Acknowledgement suppresses that finding's reminder/gate; it does not disable future reviews or claim the concern was fixed.
Host adapters
Pi adapter
Run /codex-pair-ack <hash> <reason>. On Pi this dismisses the matching reminder; there is no blocking Stop gate.
Other hosts adapter
The codex-pair background reviewer runs only in Claude Code and Pi. On any other host, say there is no active codex-pair reminder to acknowledge here.
Claude Code adapter
The existing detailed workflow below is the Claude Code adapter. Its Agent, MCP, hook, CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT, and AskUserQuestion mechanics apply only on Claude Code; they do not override the Pi adapter above.
Acknowledge a codex-pair HIGH finding
Records an ack for the given finding hash so the codex-pair Stop-gate skips it on future turn-ends. The gate prints a full 16-char hash in its block message, e.g. [fc69d46835dfd2ab] src/auth.ts — pass that hash verbatim.
Instructions
-
Parse args. The first whitespace-delimited token is
<hash>(16-char hex). The remaining text (strip enclosing quotes if present) is<reason>. If either is missing, print usage and stop:Usage: /codex-pair-ack <hash> "<reason>" Example: /codex-pair-ack fc69d46835dfd2ab "false positive — test-only code path" -
Locate the
.codex-pair/directory. Walk up from the current working directory looking for.codex-pair/context.md. The directory that contains.codex-pair/is<markerDir>. If no marker is found after reaching the filesystem root, tell the user:codex-pair is not enabled in this project (no .codex-pair/context.md found). Nothing to acknowledge. -
Validate the hash before using it: it must match
^[0-9a-f]{16}$. If it does not, print the usage block from step 1 and stop (a malformed hash means the user mistyped it).
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 · 69 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A 105df5875689
ask-llm-codex-pair-ack is a skill published in the GitHub repository Lykhoyda/ask-llm (18 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 962 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 97% identical to codex-pair-ack, differing in 68 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.