Codex Security CLI vs Claude Code Security Review: Which AI Security Scanner Can You Actually Run?
OpenAI's Codex Security CLI is open source but access-gated. Anthropic's Claude review Action is free, yet idle since February 2026.
For most teams the honest recommendation today is the Claude Code security reviewer, and the reason has nothing to do with model quality. It is the one you can switch on this afternoon. The GitHub Action is public, it is MIT licensed, it needs only a Claude API key, and the /security-review command has shipped inside Claude Code since August 2025 for every user. The Codex Security CLI is open source, but open source is only the client: the analysis runs as an OpenAI service that is explicitly in beta and requires access, and full-repository scans can additionally require Trusted Access for Cyber, which an API key does not grant. That recommendation comes with a warning, because the maintenance picture points the other way. anthropics/claude-code-security-review has 5,684 stars and 78 open issues, and its last commit landed on 11 February 2026 — more than five months ago. Its README still documents claude-opus-4-1-20250805 as the default model while action.yml no longer sets one, which is a small thing that tells you how much attention the repository is getting. Anthropic's real investment moved into Claude Code itself; the Action is the leftover delivery path. OpenAI's repository, by contrast, was created on 13 July 2026 and was still receiving commits on 29 July 2026. Where Codex Security is clearly ahead is engineering discipline in the output. It writes findings.json, scan-manifest.json and a coverage.json that records exclusions, deferred work and open questions and marks coverage as complete, partial or unknown. Almost no AI scanner tells you what it did not look at, and for anyone who has to defend a security review to an auditor that single file is worth more than a slightly better finding rate. SARIF export puts the results into GitHub code scanning next to your existing tools instead of into a comment thread. Neither tool is safe on untrusted code, and both vendors say so. Anthropic states plainly that the Action is not hardened against prompt injection and should only review trusted pull requests. OpenAI scopes its CLI to repositories you own or have permission to assess and warns that results contain source excerpts, so the output directory needs a retention policy of its own. Treat either one as a reviewer inside your trust boundary, never as a gate on contributions from strangers. Our recommendation: run the Claude Action on pull requests now, request Codex Security access in parallel, and plan to run both. They fail differently — one is diff-scoped and conversational, the other is repository-wide and audit-shaped — which is exactly why the combination is worth the second bill. And when you install the OpenAI tool, type the scope: the unscoped npm name codex-security is an unaffiliated placeholder registered on 29 July 2026, and the package you want is @openai/codex-security.
Detailed Comparison
A side-by-side analysis of key factors to help you make the right choice.
| Factor | OpenAI Codex Security CLIRecommended | Claude Code Security Review | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability and access | Beta. The CLI and SDK require access, and full-repository scans can additionally require Trusted Access for Cyber, which an API key does not grant. | Public GitHub Action anyone can add to a workflow, plus the /security-review command shipped to every Claude Code user since August 2025. | |
| What actually gets scanned | Whole repositories, individual paths and change reviews, with scan history kept across runs so a finding can be tracked over time. | Diff-aware by design: the Action reviews only the files a pull request touches. Whole-codebase review happens ad hoc via /security-review in the terminal. | |
| Machine-readable output for CI | findings.json, scan-manifest.json, a readable report.md and SARIF export, report-only by default with configurable severity thresholds. | A findings JSON file, a findings-count output and artifact upload; the primary delivery is inline comments on the pull request. | |
| Does the tool admit what it missed | coverage.json records reviewed surfaces, exclusions, deferred work and open questions, and marks coverage as complete, partial or unknown. | No coverage contract. You get findings and a count; the surfaces the review never reached are not part of the output. | |
| Maintenance and momentum | Repository created 13 July 2026, still receiving commits on 29 July 2026, first npm release the day before, 45 open issues. | 5,684 stars, but the last commit landed on 11 February 2026 and 78 issues are open. Anthropic's active work moved into Claude Code itself. | |
| How much of the pipeline you can read and fork | Apache-2.0 client, but the analysis runs as an OpenAI service behind the access gate — the part that finds vulnerabilities is not in the repository. | MIT, and the whole audit pipeline is in the repository: prompt templates, false-positive filter and API client are plain Python you can fork and change. | |
| Model choice and configuration | No model selection at all. You get the service's model; the CLI exposes scan options, output formats and exit codes instead. | claude-model pins any Claude model, alongside custom scan instructions and custom false-positive rules — though the README still documents a 2025 default that action.yml no longer sets. | |
| Running against untrusted pull requests | Docs limit the tool to repositories you own or may assess, warn that results contain source excerpts, and offer a dry run that loads no credentials. | The README states plainly that the Action is not hardened against prompt injection and should review trusted pull requests only. | |
| Total Score | 4/ 8 | 3/ 8 | 1 ties |
Key Statistics
Real data from verified industry sources to support your decision.
GitHub
npm registry
GitHub
npm registry
OpenAI Codex Security documentation
All statistics come from verified third-party sources. Source, year, and direct link are shown on each metric.
When to Choose Each Option
Clear guidance based on your specific situation and needs.
Choose OpenAI Codex Security CLI when...
- You need a whole-repository audit with a written coverage contract, not only a review of the lines one pull request happened to touch.
- Your pipeline consumes SARIF and you want AI findings in GitHub code scanning next to your existing scanners rather than in a comment thread.
- You want scan history across runs so a finding can be followed from first appearance to fix, and reported on.
- You already have Codex Security access, or Trusted Access for Cyber, and can live with a tool that is openly labelled beta.
Choose Claude Code Security Review when...
- You want security review running on every pull request today, with no access request, using the Claude API key you already have.
- You want to read and change the audit prompt, the false-positive filter and the model instead of trusting a hosted scanner you cannot inspect.
- Your developers should catch issues before they commit, which is what /security-review inside Claude Code is for.
- Your repositories are small enough that a diff-scoped review on each pull request is genuinely sufficient coverage.
Our Recommendation
For most teams the honest recommendation today is the Claude Code security reviewer, and the reason has nothing to do with model quality. It is the one you can switch on this afternoon. The GitHub Action is public, it is MIT licensed, it needs only a Claude API key, and the /security-review command has shipped inside Claude Code since August 2025 for every user. The Codex Security CLI is open source, but open source is only the client: the analysis runs as an OpenAI service that is explicitly in beta and requires access, and full-repository scans can additionally require Trusted Access for Cyber, which an API key does not grant. That recommendation comes with a warning, because the maintenance picture points the other way. anthropics/claude-code-security-review has 5,684 stars and 78 open issues, and its last commit landed on 11 February 2026 — more than five months ago. Its README still documents claude-opus-4-1-20250805 as the default model while action.yml no longer sets one, which is a small thing that tells you how much attention the repository is getting. Anthropic's real investment moved into Claude Code itself; the Action is the leftover delivery path. OpenAI's repository, by contrast, was created on 13 July 2026 and was still receiving commits on 29 July 2026. Where Codex Security is clearly ahead is engineering discipline in the output. It writes findings.json, scan-manifest.json and a coverage.json that records exclusions, deferred work and open questions and marks coverage as complete, partial or unknown. Almost no AI scanner tells you what it did not look at, and for anyone who has to defend a security review to an auditor that single file is worth more than a slightly better finding rate. SARIF export puts the results into GitHub code scanning next to your existing tools instead of into a comment thread. Neither tool is safe on untrusted code, and both vendors say so. Anthropic states plainly that the Action is not hardened against prompt injection and should only review trusted pull requests. OpenAI scopes its CLI to repositories you own or have permission to assess and warns that results contain source excerpts, so the output directory needs a retention policy of its own. Treat either one as a reviewer inside your trust boundary, never as a gate on contributions from strangers. Our recommendation: run the Claude Action on pull requests now, request Codex Security access in parallel, and plan to run both. They fail differently — one is diff-scoped and conversational, the other is repository-wide and audit-shaped — which is exactly why the combination is worth the second bill. And when you install the OpenAI tool, type the scope: the unscoped npm name codex-security is an unaffiliated placeholder registered on 29 July 2026, and the package you want is @openai/codex-security.
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions about this comparison answered.
Need help deciding?
Book a free 30-minute consultation and we'll help you determine the best approach for your specific project.