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 WebisityStudio/claude-codex-mcp-bridge --skill review-with-codexgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/WebisityStudio/claude-codex-mcp-bridgeWrote 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/webisitystudio/claude-codex-mcp-bridge/review-with-codex)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/webisitystudio/claude-codex-mcp-bridge/review-with-codex"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/webisitystudio/claude-codex-mcp-bridge/review-with-codex/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/webisitystudio/claude-codex-mcp-bridge/review-with-codex"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/webisitystudio/claude-codex-mcp-bridge/review-with-codex.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 | $0.00026 | $0.00173 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00086 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00035 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00017 |
Grade A, and why
review-with-codex 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 with Codex
Use the review_with_codex MCP tool.
- Resolve the repository to an absolute path.
- Put the user's requested focus in
focus. If none was provided, request a general correctness, security and regression review. - Treat the run as read-only. Do not ask Codex to fix findings in the review call.
- Verify each reported finding against the local files before presenting it as fact.
- Present findings by severity with file and line references. Say directly when there are no substantive findings.
- Ask for separate approval before making changes, committing or pushing.
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 · 18 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A de608b7ef4b2
review-with-codex is a skill published in the GitHub repository WebisityStudio/claude-codex-mcp-bridge (1 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 173 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
fabric-spec
Starts a persistent Pi Fabric spec supervisor that audits the main session against a feature design spec and steers only when a requirement lacks verified evidence. Use for strict, unblocked spec compliance while the main agent keeps full freedom to orchestrate.
fabric-advisor
Starts a persistent Pi Fabric peer advisor that reviews the main agent at decision points and surfaces only concrete, material advice. Use for ambient correctness review without another extension.
loop-converge
Author and optionally direct-launch a two-node loop-graph run whose North Star is code convergence — delete unused code, merge duplicates, reuse, slim. Use when the user invokes /loop-converge, or asks to loop on dead code, duplication, unused exports, DRY cleanup, or merging twin implementations. Starts the owner…
incident-review
Summarize an incident with timeline, likely cause, impact, and follow-up actions.
review-team
A multi-reviewer code review process that checks a change from several specialist viewpoints and combines the results into one report. It can cover bugs, security, tests, dependencies, frontend behavior, and continuous-integration workflows.
looper-qa
Use when a Looper-managed GitHub repo needs scheduled pre-merge QA — a PR carries the looper:qa label, the spec stage reaches looper:spec-ready, or the Looper reviewer loop requests an independent second pass. Runs the full QA cycle (Looper state probe → PR checkout → ffs code review → language-specific test suite →…