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 NickCrew/Claude-Cortex --skill codex-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/NickCrew/Claude-CortexWrote 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/nickcrew/claude-cortex/codex-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nickcrew/claude-cortex/codex-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nickcrew/claude-cortex/codex-code-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/nickcrew/claude-cortex/codex-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nickcrew/claude-cortex/codex-code-review.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 | $0.00085 | $0.02425 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00034 | $0.00970 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00485 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00243 |
Grade A, and why
codex-code-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 1mo 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 — 265 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Codex Code Review Loop
Overview
This skill orchestrates the complete remediation workflow for code under review by the codex agent. It handles:
- Requesting reviews from codex using the
codex --full-auto cCLI - Parsing review output to identify P0 (security/correctness), P1 (reliability), P2-P4 (quality) findings
- Remediating critical issues through up to 3 review-fix-review cycles
- Deferring quality improvements to backlog with implementation plans and
origin:ai-reviewlabels - Monorepo handling for selective file commits when working alongside other agents
- Circuit breaker escalation after 3 cycles if P0/P1 issues persist
When to Use
Trigger this skill when code requires codex review. Common usage patterns:
- "codex review this code" — Initiate review loop on current changes
- "run codex review on my changes" — Same as above
- "codex review --uncommitted" — Review all uncommitted changes
- "codex review --commit " — Review specific commit in monorepo
- Questions about codex (e.g., "how does codex work?") — Do not trigger this skill; answer directly
Do not trigger on questions. Only activate for direct review requests.
The Review Loop: Step by Step
ENTRY: User requests codex review or skill is triggered by "codex review" in a message
┌──────────────────────────┐
│ 1. INVOKE CODEX REVIEW │ ← Run: codex --full-auto c [--uncommitted|--commit <SHA>|--base <BRANCH>]
└──────┬───────────────────┘ Output goes to .agent/reviews/review-<timestamp>.md
│
▼
┌──────────────────────────┐
│ 2. READ & PARSE REVIEW │ ← Read markdown file, extract P0/P1/P2-P4 findings and verdict
└──────┬───────────────────┘
│
├─────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
▼ ▼
ANY P0/P1? NO FILE P2-P4 ISSUES → Exit loop
│ (via backlog CLI)
│ YES Create issue per finding with
│ - label: origin:ai-review
┌────────────────┐ - Implementation plan
│ 3. REMEDIATE │ - Priority (P2 or P3)
│ P0/P1 FINDINGS │
└────┬───────────┘
│ (amend commit or new changes)
│
▼
┌──────────────────────┐
│ 4. LOOP CHECK │
│ Cycle count < 3? │
└────┬───────────────┬─┘
│ YES │ NO
│ └─→ SUMMARIZE & ASK USER TO CONTINUE
│ (or exit if user declines)
▼
Re-run codex review (step 1, same files/scope)
Loop back to step 2
What ships with it
4 files 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 265 lines · 85 tokens per session scan A 0962c3b0ffc7
codex-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository NickCrew/Claude-Cortex (56 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 85 tokens to every session and 2,425 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Review code for quality, maintainability, and correctness.
code-review
Systematic code review for bugs, security, style, and performance.
代码审查员
A code-review agent that examines changes for correctness, security, maintainability, performance, and test coverage.
pr-review
Review a GitHub pull request and post one formal review — advance the existing discussion and give precision-first, high-signal feedback. Judgement on the diff, not a build gate — CI validates that it builds, and a targeted probe is allowed as evidence. Use when asked to review a PR or on a cron PR scan.
autonomous
Use when five specialized autonomous agents (code, deploy, planning, research, review) working as a coordinated pipeline. From spec to shipped code with automated planning, research, review, and deployment gates. Use when working with autonomous agents.
code-reviewer
8-aspect evidence-based code review/audit (security, correctness, compatibility, architecture, error handling, test gaps, type safety, simplicity) built on Google eng-practices, OWASP Top 10:2025, CWE Top 25, SemVer. Every finding needs file:line + a concrete failure scenario. Use when the user asks to review/audit…