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 sd0xdev/sd0x-harness --skill codex-review-branchgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sd0xdev/sd0x-harnessWrote 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/sd0xdev/sd0x-harness/codex-review-branch)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sd0xdev/sd0x-harness/codex-review-branch"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sd0xdev/sd0x-harness/codex-review-branch.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Agent Snooping · line 15 Skill enumerates or reads other installed skills. Access to other skills' SKILL.md files or the skills directory reveals prompt instructions, capabilities, and secrets that should be invisible to peer skills.Fix: Remove all code or instructions that list or read other skills' files or directories. Skills should operate independently; cross-skill access is a privilege escalation.
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 | $0.00018 | $0.00474 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00237 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00095 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00047 |
Grade A, and why
codex-review-branch 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 yesterday.
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
Codex Review Branch
Thin entry-point skill — routes to the parent skill for full workflow.
Parent Skill
This is the Branch variant of codex-code-review. Full workflow, prompt templates, and review logic are defined in the parent skill.
See @skills/codex-code-review/SKILL.md
Variant
| Property | Value |
|---|---|
| Scope | Full branch (all commits since base) |
| Pre-checks | None |
| Prompt template | @skills/codex-code-review/references/codex-prompt-branch.md |
| Reviewers | Codex alone. --dual adds a secondary reviewer — off unless the flag is passed |
| Tier | thorough (this is the depth variant — P0/P1/P2 block, round cap 30) |
Flags
| Flag | Default | Effect |
|---|---|---|
--dual |
off | Adds a second reviewer in parallel (see parent skill Step 3). The merge happens in conversation — no state write, no mode field, and the next invocation starts single again unless the flag is passed again. A second opinion that can block this review's gate. Use for releases, security-sensitive changes, and public API surfaces. |
--dual is the only code-review entry point where two reviewers run. /codex-review-fast and /codex-review-doc are single-reviewer by design and offer no such flag: the cost of the second opinion is only worth paying where the change warrants it, and this is that variant. /plan-review --dual is the plan-mode counterpart — same opt-in shape, same default of off, a different loop.
Trigger
- Keywords: branch review, full branch, review branch, codex-review-branch
When NOT to Use
- Quick diff-only review (use
/codex-review-fast) - Full review with lint + build (use
/codex-review) - Document review (use
/codex-review-doc)
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.
- yesterday Changed 17959facd22f
- 2d ago Changed 5284e8291b3b
- 8d ago First seen · 44 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 38a876b4e5e0
codex-review-branch is a skill published in the GitHub repository sd0xdev/sd0x-harness (188 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 474 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Two-mode skill: (1) adversarial review — spec compliance + code quality + security, confidence-scored findings with file:line evidence; (2) receiving review — verify-before- agreeing discipline for acting on external/human review feedback.
codebase-hygiene
Two-mode skill: (1) find semantic duplicates — functions doing the same thing under different names, invisible to copy-paste detectors; (2) deepen shallow modules — thin wrappers and pass-through layers that spread complexity. Advisory and read-only; changes route through BUILD with full gates.
evaluator-review-contract
Internal Auto-Harness evaluator skill for sprint contract review before implementation. Use only inside the Evaluator subagent during review mode.
comet-verify
Comet Phase 4: Verify and Close. Invoke with /comet-verify. Verify implementation matches design, handle development branch.
comet-review
A read-only review guide for checking the current Comet change, a managed software-change workflow. It focuses on correctness, security, and boundary problems without changing files or advancing the workflow.
comet-github-pr-review
A read-only review process for pull requests in Comet's GitHub repositories. A pull request is a proposed code change; the review checks its current code, related issue, comments, merge status, and automated checks.