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 Phelan164/codex-howto --skill review-securitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Phelan164/codex-howtoWrote 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/phelan164/codex-howto/review-security)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/phelan164/codex-howto/review-security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/phelan164/codex-howto/review-security.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00436 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00218 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00087 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00044 |
Grade A, and why
review-security 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 8d 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.
What it actually says
Review Security
Workflow
- Establish the review target, intended behavior, and relevant threat model.
- Identify assets, trust boundaries, actors, entry points, and sensitive operations.
- Trace attacker-controlled data to security-relevant sinks.
- Inspect authentication, authorization, tenant isolation, and privilege changes.
- Evaluate realistic exploitability and existing controls.
- Validate suspected findings safely with read-only analysis or sandboxed tests when authorized.
- Return prioritized findings with evidence, impact, prerequisites, and remediation direction.
Guardrails
- Work read-only by default.
- Do not access production systems, real customer data, or private credentials.
- Do not publish weaponized exploit details or active secrets.
- Avoid checklist-only findings without a reachable attack path.
- Distinguish a missing defense-in-depth measure from an exploitable vulnerability.
- Treat dependency scanner output as leads requiring context.
- Keep proof-of-concept activity scoped, reversible, and authorized.
Threat checklist
Read references/threat-checklist.md for changes involving identity, parsers, URLs, files, commands, serialization, secrets, data boundaries, CI, or cloud permissions.
Finding standard
Include:
- severity and confidence;
- affected asset and trust boundary;
- attacker prerequisites;
- source-to-sink or authorization path;
- impact;
- exact code location;
- safe reproduction guidance when appropriate;
- remediation and verification direction.
Acceptance criteria
- Findings describe realistic attack paths.
- Authorization and tenant boundaries are explicitly reviewed.
- Sensitive data handling is traced through logs and storage.
- False positives and assumptions are called out.
- No live exploitation or unauthorized write occurred.
- Residual risk and unreviewed surfaces are explicit.
What ships with it
2 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.
- 8d ago First seen · 53 lines · 73 tokens per session scan A 4eb555141d87
review-security is a skill published in the GitHub repository Phelan164/codex-howto (3 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 73 tokens to every session and 436 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
agent-skill-release-review
Review a Codex, Claude Code, or agent skill/plugin before public release. Use when the user wants to assess trigger quality, folder structure, documentation, validation gaps, GitHub readiness, or OSS release quality for an agent extension.
focused-code-review
Perform a concise, severity-ranked review of a non-trivial diff. Trigger after implementation or when explicitly asked to review code.
code-review-excellence
This skill should be used when the user asks to review a diff or pull request, write review comments, audit code quality, establish review standards, or improve how a team performs code review.
openlore-execute-refactor
Apply a confirmed .openlore/refactor-plan.md with a test gate after each change. Use when asked to execute or continue an OpenLore refactoring plan.
openlore-review-changes
Review code changes using OpenLore risk, call, coverage, and cluster evidence without editing code. Use when asked for a change review, pre-PR safety check, or merge recommendation.
repo-harness-cross-review
Independent outside review of the current review scope (branch diff plus staged, unstaged, untracked changes). Claude hosts use direct Codex; Codex hosts use OpenAI's official Claude Code Codex plugin app-server runtime. Use before merging, after a tricky change, or for a debug second opinion.