Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to UseJunior/email-agent-mcp. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/UseJunior/email-agent-mcp/main/.claude/skills/codex-implement/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/UseJunior/email-agent-mcpWrote 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/usejunior/email-agent-mcp/codex-implement)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/usejunior/email-agent-mcp/codex-implement"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/usejunior/email-agent-mcp/codex-implement/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/usejunior/email-agent-mcp/codex-implement"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/usejunior/email-agent-mcp/codex-implement.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 | $0.00066 | $0.06264 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.02506 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.01253 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00626 |
Grade C, and why
Codex Implement scanned grade C with 2 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 2mo 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.
Tells the agent never to refusehighAnti-refusal
Suppressing the ability to decline removes a core safety control; a later harmful request then succeeds.
**Flag, don't refuse**, when the work involves many sequential steps without a forcing function. Codex can lose track of intent across very long chains. Instrument the prompt with checkpoints ("after each subsection, res Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
<specific grep/diff/curl commands to confirm the change works on 2-3 representative cases> How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 402 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are running the /codex-implement workflow. The user wants you to delegate implementation of a GitHub issue to Codex CLI in headless mode, supervise the result, run a mandatory two-reviewer peer review (agy + Codex) on the diff, and then open a PR with auto-squash armed.
You are the supervisor, not the implementer. Codex writes the code; you write the prompt, validate the diff, gate on peer review, and ship.
Codex is highly capable on implementation — including large, multi-file, technically complex changes. Don't gate on raw complexity. Gate on workflow correctness (epic/spec/ambiguity) and on the kind of judgment that requires the user's own experience.
⚠️ Deprecated invocation warning. Do NOT use
codex exec --full-auto. That code path (and any backgroundedcodex execinvoked without an explicit stdin redirect) blocks reading stdin and hangs forever when there's no TTY attached — the process never exits,run_in_backgroundnever notifies you, and you're left with a silently-stuck review or implementation run. Everycodex execcall in this skill uses--sandbox workspace-write(or--sandbox read-onlyfor read-only reviews) plus a mandatory< /dev/nullredirect. Do not drop the redirect even when a call "looks" foreground — background scheduling can happen transparently.
When to use
- The issue has concrete acceptance criteria you can articulate as a target output.
- You can name the files most likely to change (so Codex doesn't have to hunt).
- You have a clean working tree (or saved/committed the changes you'd lose).
When to reserve for the user instead of delegating
- Edge-case judgment from a decade of practice. The issue's correct solution depends on long-tail scenarios Codex will over-normalize away ("there are only five cases" when the user can trivially name a sixth from real-world experience). Includes regulatory practice nuances, customer-specific institutional knowledge, and rare-but-load-bearing edge conditions.
- Non-formally-verifiable outcomes. The success criterion is taste, voice, or positioning — product copy, brand voice, ICP framing, sales-narrative phrasing. Codex optimizes against verifiable targets; subjective ones drift.
- Real-world experience the long tail Codex can't find documented. Even with web search, the answer lives in the user's head from years of working a domain. Surface to the user.
- Workflow gates (independent of Codex's capability):
epic-labelled issues — break into scoped sub-issues first.- Issues that require an OpenSpec change before implementation — handle the spec/proposal step first.
- Issues without testable acceptance criteria — sharpen the issue first.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 402 lines · 66 tokens per session scan C e13813aabd8f
Codex Implement is a skill published in the GitHub repository UseJunior/email-agent-mcp (7 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 66 tokens to every session and 6,264 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it C with 2 findings (tells the agent never to refuse, makes network calls). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
Codex
Guides operator-owned delegation to Codex when the task fits a bounded coding lane, review pass, or worktree-isolated implementation track.
github-pr-workflow
Prepare a GitHub pull request from a feature branch — branch hygiene, commit shape, title/body, verification notes, screenshots for UI work, and replies to review comments.
developer_pr_prep
Prepare branches, diffs, tests, and GitHub PR text from a conversation's code folder.
resolve-pr-comments
This skill should be used when user asks to "address PR comments", "resolve PR feedback", "handle review comments", "fix PR issues", "respond to PR review", or explicitly invokes "resolve-pr-comments".
review-pr
This skill should be used when user asks to "review a PR", "review pull request", "review this pr", "code review this PR", "check PR.
codeflow-maintainer
OpenClaw-only maintainer PR workflow modes and skills. For OpenCoven/coven PR creation, redirect to skills/pr-agent, the Coven PR Readiness Agent.