abczsl520/codex-review/SKILL.md
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。
npx skillsauth add openclaw/skills codex-reviewInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Unified orchestration layer: picks audit depth based on trigger phrases. bug-audit is invoked as an independent skill — never modified.
CODEX_REVIEW_API_KEY env var. Never hardcoded, never logged, never stored.CODEX_REVIEW_API_BASE (default: https://api.openai.com/v1), CODEX_REVIEW_API_KEY, CODEX_REVIEW_MODEL (default: gpt-4o)| User says | Level | What it does | Est. time | |-----------|-------|--------------|-----------| | "review" / "quick scan" / "review下" / "检查下" | L1 | External model scan + agent deep pass | 5-10 min | | "audit" / "deep audit" / "审计下" / "排查下" | L2 | Full bug-audit flow (or built-in fallback) | 30-60 min | | "pre-deploy check" / "上线前检查" | L1→L2 | L1 scan → record hotspots → L2 audit → hotspot gap check | 40-70 min | | "cross-validate" / "highest level" / "交叉验证" | L3 | Dual independent audits + compare + adversarial test | 60-90 min |
read, git clone <url>, server scp, user-pasted snippet, or PR diffcurl -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.
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.
Node.js/Express:
Python/Django/Flask:
Frontend (React/Vue/vanilla):
Other stacks: adapt checklist to detected technology.
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.
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
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.
# 🔍 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]
Users can customize behavior by saying:
tools
Use when the user wants to connect to, test, or use the McDonalds service at mcp.mcd.cn, including checking authentication, probing MCP endpoints, listing tools, or calling McDonalds MCP tools through a reusable local CLI.
development
Web scraping platform — Twitter/X data, Vinted marketplace, and general web scraping API
development
SlowMist AI Agent Security Review — comprehensive security framework for skills, repositories, URLs, on-chain addresses, and products (Claude Code version)
data-ai
去除中文文本中的 AI 写作痕迹,使其读起来自然。基于维基百科 AI 写作特征指南,检测 24 种 AI 模式。触发词:humanizer-cn、去除 AI 痕迹、去除 AI 写作痕迹、中文文本人性化。