AC acpx-codex-playbook
Practical playbook for running Codex through acpx in persistent sessions, especially when the task needs reliable file creation, local dependency installs, shell-based writes, or structured delivery such as PPTX, reports, generated assets, and multi-step coding work. Use when the user wants work done via acpx/Codex instead of direct edits, or when prior acpx attempts failed because of quoting, session mode, fs/write_text_file permission issues, sandbox boundaries, or confusion about full-access vs true system privilege.
As a process C 57/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, running it twice
How to improve
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 1
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 1
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:49Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)Do **not** assume `full-access` means sudo or root. It relaxes the ACP session; it does not guarantee system-level privilege escalation.
Files scanned: 4. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec
Process rating: all ten parameters 57/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 2 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, python) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 85Steps. 36 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Failures and branches. 5 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1164 tokens
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 525: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 16 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 36 items
- +4Has examples (5 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 2)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 88.