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 Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-codex --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-codexWrote 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/yeachan-heo/oh-my-codex/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/yeachan-heo/oh-my-codex/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yeachan-heo/oh-my-codex/code-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00008 | $0.01275 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00638 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00255 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00128 |
Grade A, and why
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 119 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Task Card
Use this explicit opt-in for a merge-readiness review. Shared operating invariants
live in templates/AGENTS.md; this card only defines review-specific behavior.
When to use
- The user asks for a code review or quality/security assessment.
- A change is ready for review before merge, or a major feature needs an independent review.
- Do not activate this card for implementation, broad planning, or automatic cleanup.
Inputs
- Scope: the requested files, commit, PR, or whole diff.
- Requirements/specification, acceptance criteria, and relevant test/CI evidence.
- Existing review artifacts and known risks, if any.
- If the user says
continue, advance the current verified review step rather than restarting discovery.
Start by recording the scope:
git status --short
git diff --stat
git diff -- <scope>
Execution
- Identify changed files and review boundaries; do not silently widen the scope.
- Launch the
code-reviewerandarchitectagents in parallel. Both lanes run in parallel on a clean context with explicit scope and artifacts. If either lane cannot be launched or does not return evidence, reportindependent review unavailable; do not substitute the current/authoring lane, and do not approve or mark the review merge-ready. - Respect the user's current model and reasoning/effort selection. Do not pass
modelorreasoning_effortoverrides in review-lane calls.
task(
agent_type="code-reviewer",
prompt="CODE REVIEW TASK
Review the supplied scope for spec compliance, security, quality, performance, and maintainability.
Return files reviewed, severity-rated findings with file:line evidence and concrete fixes,
and a recommendation: APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES / COMMENT. Do not review architecture.
Scope: [scope and artifacts]"
)
task(
agent_type="architect",
prompt="ARCHITECTURE / DEVIL'S-ADVOCATE REVIEW TASK
Review the same scope for boundaries, interfaces, hidden coupling, long-term tradeoffs,
and the strongest counterargument against approval. Return file:line evidence,
recommendations, and Architectural Status: CLEAR / WATCH / BLOCK.
Scope: [scope and artifacts]"
)
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 · 119 lines · 8 tokens per session scan A be16f9bb2bc5
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-codex (33,014 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 8 tokens to every session and 1,275 once invoked, about $0.0000 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
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…