review-with-codex
Skill2 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Asks Codex for a read-only evidence-led review of the current repository or a named subsystem.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- itgenius-au/skills-librarytheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- CorySchulz/skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 2, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- CorySchulz/skills★ 2same name
- itgenius-au/skills-library★ 1same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository2 other files it gives its agents.
- ask-codexSkill
- claude-codex-coordinatorSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 10
Use the review_with_codex MCP tool.
- Very specific: line 12
Put the user's requested focus in focus.
- Very specific: line 14
If the status is running_codex, the review arrives in your mailbox from bridge, or call bridge_orchestration_wait with the run ID.
- Distinctive: line 15
Verify each reported finding against the local files before presenting it as fact.
- Distinctive: line 17
Ask for separate approval before making changes, committing or pushing.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Review with Codex
Use the review_with_codex MCP tool.
- Put the user's requested focus in
focus. If none was provided, request a general correctness, security and regression review. The project defaults to this session's project. - Codex runs in a read-only sandbox. If the result warns that the workspace changed during the review, tell the user before relying on it.
- If the status is
running_codex, the review arrives in your mailbox frombridge, or callbridge_orchestration_waitwith the run ID. - 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.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.