Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索敏感数据clawhub未标认证来源可访问clear审计通过

codex-reviewCodex 审查

Agent Skill

codex-review 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 OpenClaw 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

10,569

周安装

436

GitHub Stars

公开资料未说明

下载量

3,453
OpenClaw

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

MIT-0

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:codex-review(Codex 审查)
来源仓库:https://github.com/abczsl520/codex-review
安装命令:
openclaw skills install codex-review
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 OpenClaw 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

ClawHubOpenClaw
openclaw skills install codex-review

简介

三层代码质量防御:L1 快速扫描、L2 深度审计(通过错误审计)、L3 与对抗性测试交叉验证。 三级代码质量防线。

SKILL.md

name
codex-review
version
2.1.0
description
Three-tier code quality defense: L1 quick scan, L2 deep audit (via bug-audit), L3 cross-validation with adversarial testing. 三级代码质量防线。
metadata
tags

Codex Review — Three-Tier Code Quality Defense

Unified orchestration layer: picks audit depth based on trigger phrases. bug-audit is invoked as an independent skill — never modified.

Security & Privacy

  • Read-only by default: This skill only reads your project files for analysis. It does NOT modify, delete, or upload your code anywhere.
  • Optional external model: L1/L3 can use an external code-review API (OpenAI-compatible) for a second opinion. This is opt-in — if no API key is configured, the skill works fine with agent-only review.
  • Credentials via environment variables only: API keys are loaded from CODEX_REVIEW_API_KEY env var. Never hardcoded, never logged, never stored.
  • Local-only artifacts: Hotspot files are written to system temp directory and auto-cleaned. No network transmission of analysis results.
  • No data exfiltration: Code snippets sent to the external API are limited to the files being reviewed. No telemetry, no analytics, no third-party data sharing beyond the configured review model.

Prerequisites

  • External model API (optional, for L1 Round 1 and L3): Any OpenAI-compatible endpoint.

- Set env vars: CODEX_REVIEW_API_BASE (default: https://api.openai.com/v1), CODEX_REVIEW_API_KEY, CODEX_REVIEW_MODEL (default: gpt-4o) - Works without this — falls back to agent-only audit

  • bug-audit skill (optional): Required for L2/L3. Without it, L2 uses a built-in fallback.
  • curl: For API calls (standard on macOS/Linux)

Trigger Mapping

User saysLevelWhat it doesEst. time
"review" / "quick scan" / "review下" / "检查下"L1External model scan + agent deep pass5-10 min
"audit" / "deep audit" / "审计下" / "排查下"L2Full bug-audit flow (or built-in fallback)30-60 min
"pre-deploy check" / "上线前检查"L1→L2L1 scan → record hotspots → L2 audit → hotspot gap check40-70 min
"cross-validate" / "highest level" / "交叉验证"L3Dual independent audits + compare + adversarial test60-90 min

Level 1: Quick Scan (core of codex-review)

Flow

  1. Gather code — local read, git clone <url>, server scp, user-pasted snippet, or PR diff
  2. Exclude — node_modules/, .git/, package-lock.json, dist/, *.db, __pycache__/, vendor/
  3. Round 1 — send to external model API for automated scan (skipped if no API key)
  4. Round 2 — current agent does deep supplementary pass
  5. Merge & dedup — output severity-graded report
  6. Write hotspot file (for L1→L2 handoff)

External Model API Call

curl -s "${CODEX_REVIEW_API_BASE:-https://api.openai.com/v1}/chat/completions" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer ${CODEX_REVIEW_API_KEY}" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "model": "${CODEX_REVIEW_MODEL:-gpt-4o}",
    "messages": [
      {"role": "system", "content": "<REVIEW_SYSTEM_PROMPT>"},
      {"role": "user", "content": "<code content>"}
    ],
    "temperature": 0.2,
    "max_tokens": 6000
  }'

Fallback: If API call fails or times out (120s), skip Round 1 and complete with agent-only audit.

System Prompt (L1 External Scan)

You are an expert code reviewer. Find ALL bugs and security issues:
1. CRITICAL — Security vulnerabilities (XSS, injection, auth bypass), crash bugs
2. HIGH — Logic errors, race conditions, unhandled exceptions
3. MEDIUM — Missing validation, edge cases, performance issues
4. LOW — Code style, dead code, minor improvements

For each: Severity, File+line, Issue, Fix with code snippet.
Focus on real bugs, not style opinions. Output language: match the user's language.

Agent Round 2 — Universal Checklist

  • [ ] Cross-file logic consistency (imports, exports, shared state)
  • [ ] Authentication & authorization bypass
  • [ ] Race conditions (concurrent requests, DB write conflicts)
  • [ ] Unhandled exceptions / missing error boundaries
  • [ ] Input validation & sanitization (SQL injection, XSS, path traversal)
  • [ ] Memory/resource leaks (unclosed connections, event listener buildup)
  • [ ] Sensitive data exposure (keys in code, logs, error messages)
  • [ ] Timezone handling (UTC vs local)
  • [ ] Dependency vulnerabilities (outdated packages, known CVEs)

Agent Round 2 — Tech-Stack Specific (auto-detect & apply)

Node.js/Express:

  • [ ] SQLite pitfalls (DEFAULT doesn't support functions, double-quote = column name)
  • [ ] Middleware ordering (auth before route handlers)
  • [ ] pm2/cluster mode compatibility

Python/Django/Flask:

  • [ ] ORM N+1 queries
  • [ ] CSRF protection enabled
  • [ ] Debug mode in production

Frontend (React/Vue/vanilla):

  • [ ] innerHTML / dangerouslySetInnerHTML without sanitization
  • [ ] WebView compatibility (WeChat, in-app browsers)
  • [ ] Nginx sub-path / base URL issues

Other stacks: adapt checklist to detected technology.

Code Volume Control

  • Single API request: backend core files only (server + routes + db + config)
  • Send frontend as a second batch if needed
  • Very large projects (>50 files): summarize file tree first, then scan in priority order

Hotspot File (L1→L2 handoff)

After L1, write issue summary to ${TMPDIR:-/tmp}/codex-review-hotspots.json:

{
  "project": "my-project",
  "timestamp": "2026-03-05T22:00:00",
  "hotspots": [
    {"file": "routes/admin.js", "severity": "CRITICAL", "brief": "Admin auth bypass via localhost"},
    {"file": "routes/game.js", "severity": "CRITICAL", "brief": "Score submission no server validation"}
  ]
}

This file is only used internally for L1→L2 handoff. bug-audit is unaware of it.


Level 2: Deep Audit

Flow (bug-audit available)

  1. Read bug-audit's SKILL.md and execute its full flow (6 Phases)
  2. bug-audit itself is never modified
  3. Agent strictly follows bug-audit's specification

Flow (bug-audit NOT available — built-in fallback)

  1. Phase 1: Project Dissection — read all source files, build dependency graph
  2. Phase 2: Build Check Matrix — generate project-specific checklist from actual code patterns
  3. Phase 3: Exhaustive Verification — verify every checklist item against real code
  4. Phase 4: Reproduce — for each finding, trace the exact execution path
  5. Phase 5: Report — output full severity-graded report
  6. Phase 6: Fix Suggestions — provide concrete code patches

Level 1→2 Cascade: Pre-Deploy Check

Flow

  1. Execute L1 quick scan
  2. Write hotspot file
  3. Execute L2 (bug-audit or fallback)
  4. After L2, agent does hotspot gap analysis:

- Read hotspot file - Check if L2 report covers each L1 hotspot - Uncovered hotspots → targeted deep analysis, add to report - L1 vs L2 conclusions conflict → flag for manual review

  1. Output final merged report

Level 3: Cross-Validation (highest level)

Flow

Step 1: External model independent audit
  → Full code to external API with detailed system prompt
  → Output: Report A

Step 2: Agent independent audit (bug-audit or fallback)
  → Full bug-audit flow (or built-in fallback)
  → Output: Report B

Step 3: Cross-compare
  → Both found       → 🔴 Confirmed high-risk (high confidence)
  → Only external    → 🟡 Agent verifies (possible false positive)
  → Only agent       → 🟡 External verifies (possible deep logic bug)
  → Contradictory    → ⚠️ Deep analysis, provide judgment

Step 4: Adversarial testing
  → Ask external model to bypass discovered fixes
  → Validate fix robustness

Adversarial Test Prompt

You are a security researcher. The following security fixes were applied to a project.
For each fix, analyze:
1. Can the fix be bypassed? How?
2. Does the fix introduce new vulnerabilities?
3. Are there edge cases the fix doesn't cover?
Be adversarial and thorough. Output language: match the user's language.

Report Format (all levels)

# 🔍 Code Audit Report — [Project Name]
## Audit Level: L1 / L2 / L3
## 📊 Overview
- Files scanned: X
- Issues found: X (🔴 Critical X | 🟠 High X | 🟡 Medium X | 🔵 Low X)
- [L3 only] Cross-validation: Both agreed X | External only X | Agent only X | Conflict X

## 🔴 Critical Issues
### 1. [Issue Title]
- **File**: `path/to/file.js:42-55`
- **Found by**: External model / Agent / Both
- **Description**: ...
- **Fix**:
(code snippet)

## ✅ Highlights
- [What's done well]

User Options

Users can customize behavior by saying:

  • "only scan backend" / "只扫后端" → skip frontend files
  • "ignore LOW" / "忽略低级别" → filter out LOW severity
  • "output in English/Chinese" → control report language
  • "scan this PR" / "审这个PR" → fetch PR diff instead of full codebase
  • "skip external model" / "不用外部模型" → agent-only audit

Notes

  1. External API timeout: 120 seconds. On failure, skip that round — agent completes independently
  2. Large projects: split into batches (backend → frontend → config)
  3. Long reports: split across multiple messages, adapted to current channel
  4. L2/L3 bug-audit execution strictly follows its own SKILL.md — no modifications or shortcuts
  5. Hotspot file is ephemeral — overwritten each L1 run, not persisted
  6. All secrets/keys must come from env vars or user config — never hardcoded in this skill

适合场景

01

OpenClaw 用户查找和安装 Skill 时

02

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

03

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

04

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

补充不同宿主或平台的使用分布数据

能力 5

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

OpenClaw

91.94%
按下载量换算3,175

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

通过

Static analysis

未展示

权限和风险

敏感数据

该 Skill 可能接触密钥、Token、环境变量或敏感配置,应进入高风险复核队列,默认不自动发布。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills