codex-bridge
Skill7 starsChanged 6 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Delegate a single bounded coding or code-review task to the OpenAI Codex CLI (runs against Bedrock), then review Codex's output yourself before committing. ONLY use this skill when the triggering issue or comment EXPLICITLY names Codex — e.g. "use Codex", "ask Codex to review this", "pass this to Codex", "have Codex write X". Never invoke it autonomously, speculatively, or because a task merely looks like something Codex could do. If nobody asked for Codex, do the work yourself and do not run this skill.
7 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- zirui-song/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- buidangminh23/codex-mcp-bridgetheir own version, first seen Oct 26, 2026
- UNLINEARITY/CLI-WeChat-Bridgetheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- AgentShekel/agentic-workflowtheir own version, first seen Oct 14, 2026
- w4sspr/codex-bridgetheir own version, first seen Sep 8, 2026
- 651002/codex-eyes-handstheir own version, first seen Aug 15, 2026
Other versions7 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 7
- UNLINEARITY/CLI-WeChat-Bridge★ 565same name
- yaohui325/codex-bridge★ 48same name
- buidangminh23/codex-mcp-bridge★ 32same name
- zirui-song/claude-skills★ 17same name
- 651002/codex-eyes-hands★ 4same name
- AgentShekel/agentic-workflow★ 4same name
- w4sspr/codex-bridge★ 0same 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 repository20 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- modules/agent-factory/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- modules/domain-apps/superplane/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- modules/L5-services/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- evidence-skillSkill
- adp-flowSkill
- grillingSkill
- aidlc-emit-issuesSkill
- stage-1-triageSkill
- stage-2-osintSkill
- stage-3-staticSkill
- stage-4-dynamicSkill
- stage-5-correlationSkill
- stage-6-verdictSkill
- stage-7-reportSkill
- url-analysisSkill
- url-analysisSkill
- skypilotSkill
- superplaneSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.
7
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 25
Use it only when the person who triggered this run explicitly asked for Codex.
- Distinctive: line 33
If you scan the triggering text and find no explicit mention of Codex,
- Distinctive: line 95
Treat the result as a proposal:
- Distinctive: line 97
Write mode: run git diff and read every change.
- Distinctive: line 101
Review mode: treat Codex's findings as input to your own judgment — a cross-model second opinion.
- Very specific: line 120
Do not paste the raw JSONL — it stays on disk.
- Distinctive: line 126
The explicit-trigger gate is mandatory: No Codex mention → do not run this skill.
- Distinctive: line 128
One bounded task per invocation: Don't script open-ended loops of Codex calls.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 6 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
codex-bridge
Hand a single, bounded task to the Codex CLI and bring the result back for
your review. Codex runs headless in this pod against Bedrock (openai.gpt-5.5);
auth is the pod's IRSA credential chain — there are no secrets to manage.
You (the supervising Claude agent) stay in the loop: Codex's output is a proposal, not a commit. You read its diff/output, decide whether it's correct, and only then integrate it.
When to use this skill
Use it only when the person who triggered this run explicitly asked for Codex. Concrete triggers (in the issue body or the comment that summoned you):
- "use Codex to …"
- "ask Codex to review this diff / this file / this PR"
- "pass this to Codex" / "have Codex write / implement …"
- "get a second opinion from Codex"
If you scan the triggering text and find no explicit mention of Codex, stop — do not run this skill. Complete the task with your own tools. This gate is a hard requirement: firing autonomously spends Bedrock budget on a model the user did not choose and produces code authored by an unintended model.
How to use it
1. Confirm the explicit request
Re-read the triggering issue/comment. Confirm it names Codex and identifies a concrete, bounded task (write X, review file Y). If the ask is vague, ask the requester to narrow it rather than guessing.
2. Run the wrapper
The wrapper is scripts/run-codex.sh. It closes stdin, enforces a hard timeout,
resets AWS credentials to the pod's IRSA defaults, and passes your instruction to
Codex as a single argument (no shell interpretation of the text).
Write mode — Codex authors/edits code in the current working directory:
.claude/skills/codex-bridge/scripts/run-codex.sh write "Add a hello_world() function to hello.py that prints 'hello world'."Review mode — Codex reviews a single file and reports findings (read-only intent):
.claude/skills/codex-bridge/scripts/run-codex.sh review path/to/changed_file.pyReview-diff mode — Codex reviews a whole PR-level diff at once (read-only intent), so it has cross-file context instead of one file at a time:
# Review the working tree vs. the default base (origin/main):
.claude/skills/codex-bridge/scripts/run-codex.sh review-diff
# …or against an explicit base ref:
.claude/skills/codex-bridge/scripts/run-codex.sh review-diff mainreview-diff builds git diff <base>... (three-dot / merge-base semantics),
caps it at CODEX_DIFF_MAX_BYTES (default 262144; a truncation marker is added
and Codex is told when the diff is cut), and passes it to Codex as a single
literal argument — the diff content is data, never shell-evaluated. An empty diff
exits 0 without invoking Codex (no spend on nothing); running outside a git repo
or against a bad base ref exits 2 before Codex runs.
Persona-calibrated review. In both review and review-diff, when a
distilled persona pack resolves (${CODEX_DISTILLED_DIR}/${AGENT_TYPE}.md, the
same file used for the AGENTS.md render), its conventions + quality bar are
prepended to the review instruction so findings are persona-aware. If no pack
resolves, the review prompt is byte-identical to the un-calibrated default. The
AGENTS.md render still applies in review modes too — the prepend is additive
calibration of the task, not a replacement.
The script prints Codex's final message to stdout. A non-zero exit means Codex failed or timed out — its stderr is surfaced; report it, do not silently retry in a loop.
3. Review before committing
Treat the result as a proposal:
- Write mode: run
git diffand read every change. Verify it does what was asked, matches the repo's conventions, and introduces nothing unexpected. Run the relevant tests/linters. Only commit if it passes your review; otherwise fix or discard it. You own the final diff. - Review mode: treat Codex's findings as input to your own judgment — a cross-model second opinion. Decide which points are valid before acting.
4. Restate the run summary (so it lands on the live run page)
The wrapper prints a compact, per-step summary of what Codex did — one line per reasoning step / command / file edit, Codex's final message, and a trailer with the session id, token usage, and the raw JSONL log path. That output sits inside the Bash tool result, so it does not reach the live run page on its own.
In your next message after the wrapper returns, restate that summary so it reaches operators watching the run (it lands one turn late) and appears in the completion comment. Keep it compact — ≤ ~20 lines:
- the per-step lines Codex emitted (reasoning /
exec/edit), trimmed; - Codex's final message (or a short paraphrase if it's long);
- the session id and token usage from the trailer.
Do not paste the raw JSONL — it stays on disk. Reference its path (shown in
the trailer, under /tmp/codex-runs/) only if you need to point at it for deep
debugging.
Guardrails
- The explicit-trigger gate is mandatory. No Codex mention → do not run this skill.
- One bounded task per invocation. Don't script open-ended loops of Codex calls; each run is supervised.
- You review the output. Codex authors a proposal; you are accountable for what gets committed.
- Never pass secrets in the instruction. The instruction text is the task description, not a place for credentials.
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.

