by snakyvine · Codex Skill · ★ 100
Last updated: · Indexed by AgentSkillsHub · Auto-synced every 8h
git clone https://github.com/snakyvine/codex-maintainer.gitTaken from the project's README on GitHub. Check the security audit before running it.
None of the 42 rules matched — no credential harvesting, no data exfiltration, no curl-pipe-shell installer. Scanned against 42 published rules built on the SlowMist agent-security taxonomy, refreshed every 8 hours. Full audit →
The quality score combines nine heuristic checks of the repo and its README: completeness, clarity, specificity, examples, structure, agent readiness, step-by-step content, instruction quality and security notes. It rates how well the project explains itself to an agent, not the code.
| Stars | 100 |
| Forks | 0 |
| Language | TypeScript |
| Category | Codex Skill |
| License | MIT |
| Quality Score | 66/100 |
| Open Issues | 3 |
| Last Updated | 2026-10-08 |
| Created | 2026-09-17 |
| Platforms | cli, codex, node |
| Est. Tokens | ~18k |
Codex Maintainer Evidence-first issue triage and pull request review. Maintainers keep the final say. Codex Maintainer is a CLI and GitHub Action that reads repository context, asks an OpenAI coding model for a structured analysis, and checks the result against the available evidence. It recommends; it does not approve, merge, close, or fix code.
Looking for a codex-maintainer alternative? If you're comparing codex-maintainer with other codex skill tools, these 1 projects are the closest alternatives on Agent Skills Hub — ranked by topic overlap, star count, and community traction.
A Codex/Claude skill that maintains per-repo operating theory documents.
Explore other popular codex skill tools:
Grades come from a rule-based scan built on the SlowMist agent-security taxonomy: 42 published rules, covering credential harvesting, data exfiltration, curl | sh installers and more. It is a first-layer scan, not a manual audit — we say so rather than overstate it.
The scale of the problem is documented independently: Liu et al. (2026), in a study of 31,132 agent skills, report that 26.1% contain security vulnerabilities. Our own full-catalog census is published as a citable open dataset.
Sources & who's responsible: