Every source behind the read

65 sources in Engineering leaders and teams, with product documentation Showing all 157 sources

1. Positive

   Naresh Jain, founder of Specmatic

   Are Harnesses Worth the Cost?Article, martinfowler.com (Exploring Gen AI series)

   Running Codex ten times on a detailed API brief, GPT-6 Sol at low effort passed all 178 acceptance tests in every run with or without a harness, and the harness made those runs about 7 times more expensive. GPT-6 Luna succeeded in three unharnessed runs and in every harnessed run, at 33% less per run than Sol.

   "Using Codex with GPT-6 Sol at low reasoning effort, the agent produced an application that passed all 178 automated acceptance tests in each of the 10 runs, both with and without the harness."

   Published Oct 13, 2026Ten-run experiment building an API service with Kafka events against contract tests

   Practitioner account, name and role on an outside page; structured test; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

   Origin

   Published practitioner account

   Checked

   Name and role on an outside page; Ran a structured test; Artifact checked (benchmark output); Observed on GPT-6 Sol at low reasoning effort; GPT-6 Luna at low reasoning effort

   Role

   Name on a page the person does not control; employer on a page the person does not control; role on a page the person does not control (founder of Specmatic)

   Relationship

   Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

   How they know

   Ran a structured test

   Support

   3 artifacts (benchmark output)

   Date and version

   2026-10-13, GPT-6 Sol at low reasoning effort; GPT-6 Luna at low reasoning effort

   Counts toward

   Delivered outcomes, measured outcomes: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

   Counts toward

   Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

   Not counted

   Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

   Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

   Counts toward

   • Overall signal
   • Code Quality: Positive
   • Long-Running Autonomy: Positive
   • Usage Limits / Cost: Discussed without concern
   • Strongest on scoped, repository-level work

   Published on

   Engineering Blogs & Reviews

   Who

   Technical leadership

   Evidence

   Measured

   Applies to

   Current

   Observed on

   Codex with GPT-6 Sol at low reasoning effort and GPT-6 Luna, with and without a behavioral harness

2. Positive

   iforgotmypasswo, Hacker News commenter

   Comment on: Gemini 4 ArgonHacker News comment

   As an engineering manager, says US$500 a month for 40 or more hours a week of Astra has made their team's jobs much easier, and calls the Codex App Server amazing.

   Published Oct 13, 2026self-described: Engineering manager on an enterprise OpenAI plan

   Practitioner account, pseudonymous; opinion; not counted, takes no position How GILD checked it

   Origin

   Published practitioner account

   Checked

   Pseudonymous; Customer of Codex; Opinion

   Role

   Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

   Relationship

   customer (self disclosed)

   How they know

   Opinion, no use stated

   Support

   No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

   Date and version

   2026-10-13

   Not counted

   no aspect: excluded, takes no position on any assessed aspect

   Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

   Counts toward

   • Developer Experience: Positive
   • Value for Money: Positive
   • Usage Limits / Cost: Discussed without concern

   Published on

   Developer Communities

   Who

   Technical leadership

   Evidence

   Reported

   Applies to

   Current

   Observed on

   US$500 per month, GPT-6 Astra

3. Positive

   Jayson DeLancey, Semgrep

   Why Engineers Are Switching to CodexCompany blog post, Semgrep

   Jayson DeLancey writes that a lot of tool shuffling has been landing on Codex for Semgrep's engineering team, with engineers citing less babysitting on certain types of tasks, cheap retries and AGENTS.md. One engineer now does 90% of their work through Codex; one described burning 94% of a five-hour limit.

   "One engineer on our team switched about six months ago, around the GPT-5.5 release, and now does 90% of their work through Codex."

   Published Oct 6, 2026self-described: Semgrep's own engineering team; the post also announces Semgrep Guardian support for Codex

   Vendor material; ran the rollout; counts toward Operational control, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

   Origin

   Vendor material

   Checked

   Ran the rollout; Specific details; Observed on GPT-5.5

   Role

   Name unknown; employer unknown; role unknown

   Relationship

   vendor published (self disclosed)

   How they know

   Ran the rollout

   Support

   No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

   Date and version

   2026-10-06, GPT-5.5

   Counts toward

   Operational control, execution control: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control

   Counts toward

   Operational control, admin control: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance, C-relationship, C-unknown-control

   Counts toward

   Adoption and upkeep, ongoing upkeep: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance, C-relationship, C-unknown-control

   Not counted

   Delivered outcomes, task completion: a lead (G0), counts toward nothing until substantiated

   Not counted

   Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: a lead (G0), counts toward nothing until substantiated

   Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

   Counts toward

   • Usage Limits / Cost: Raised as a concern
   • Requires Strong Review: Discussed without concern
   • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Codex as the main tool
   • How much should Codex complete before a human checkpoint?: Broader delegation

   Published on

   Engineering Blogs & Reviews

   Who

   Professional team

   Evidence

   Reported

   Applies to

   Current

4. Positive

   Nick Kilpatrick, software developer at Atomic Object

   Get Into Agentic Development From the Shallow EndCompany blog post, Atomic Object (Atomic Spin)

   Set up Codex command rules, sandbox settings and a guard hook to allow routine Git and project file edits, block recursive deletion and .env access, and review pushes; then logged approval requests via Codex hooks to propose allowlist rules he reviews and tests first.

   "I implemented a similar model for Codex using its command rules, sandbox configuration, and a guard hook."

   Published Oct 1, 2026Atomic Object consultant on a mobile app project with simulator testing

   Practitioner account, name and role on their organization's own page; direct use; counts toward Operational control How GILD checked it

   Origin

   Published practitioner account

   Checked

   Name and role on their organization's own page; Used it directly; Artifact checked (log)

   Role

   Name on a page the person does not control; employer on a page the person does not control; role on a page the person does not control (Software Consultant and Developer)

   Relationship

   Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

   How they know

   Used it directly

   Support

   1 artifact (log)

   Date and version

   2026-10-01

   Counts toward

   Operational control, execution control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

   Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

   Counts toward

   • Overall signal
   • Developer Experience: Positive
   • How much should Codex complete before a human checkpoint?: Tighter steering

   Published on

   Engineering Blogs & Reviews

   Who

   Professional team

   Evidence

   Reported

   Applies to

   Current

   Observed on

   Codex command rules, sandbox configuration and hooks

5. Positive

   sreekanth850, Hacker News commenter

   Comment on: GPT 6.1 Sol: Near-Astra intelligence for a fifth of the priceHacker News comment

   Their team runs Codex in VS Code only on work they have agreed in an impact study and implementation plan with full regression tests. It is slow, and they report about 10 times the output with clean, consistent code.

   Published Sep 30, 2026self-described: Three-person team on a large C# codebase, Codex in VS Code

   Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Operational control How GILD checked it

   Origin

   Published practitioner account

   Checked

   Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly

   Role

   Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

   Relationship

   No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

   How they know

   Used it directly

   Support

   No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

   Date and version

   2026-09-30

   Counts toward

   Operational control, execution control: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

   Not counted

   Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

   Not counted

   Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

   Not counted

   Delivered outcomes, context handling: repeats a stronger account in its group

   Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

   Counts toward

   • Overall signal
   • Code Quality: Positive
   • Fast Runs: Mixed or negative
   • Written conventions make results consistent
   • How much should Codex complete before a human checkpoint?: Tighter steering

   Published on

   Developer Communities

   Who

   Very small team

   Evidence

   Reported

   Applies to

   Current

6. Mixed

   Elie Bakouch, research engineer at Prime Intellect

   We Let Claude Code and Codex Race Human Researchers - Elie Bakouch, Prime IntellectConference talk, AI Engineer (YouTube)

   In a multi-day research speedrun Codex never went idle and beat the human record, though it burned more tokens than Claude Code and invented no new optimizer.

   "…and then I was just like okay continue explore new direction hey just go again for 10 hours and then say yeah I cannot beat the recall and so on. So basically onethird of the time the cloud code agent was idle…"

   "So basically onethird of the time the cloud code agent was idle because I had no way to basically monitor it and codeex totally the opposite just worked for all the all the time and uh yeah almost never idle never asked for question…"

   Published Sep 26, 2026self-described: Prime Intellect, optimizer speedrun experiments on the company GPU cluster

   Practitioner account, self-described; structured test; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

   Origin

   Published practitioner account

   Checked

   Self-described; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Ran a structured test; Observed on GPT 5.5 with XI; Artifact checked (benchmark output)

   Role

   Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

   Relationship

   No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, author profile); that is not proof none exists

   How they know

   Ran a structured test

   Support

   1 artifact (benchmark output)

   Date and version

   2026-09-26, GPT 5.5 with XI

   Counts toward

   Delivered outcomes, measured outcomes: favorable, G3 (3 units before bounds)

   Not counted

   Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

   Not counted

   Reliability, run stability: repeats a stronger account in its group

   Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

   Counts toward

   • Overall signal
   • Long-Running Autonomy: Positive
   • Usage Limits / Cost: Discussed without concern
   • Communication & Steering: Discussed without concern
   • How much should Codex complete before a human checkpoint?: Broader delegation

   Published on

   Podcasts, Talks & Videos

   Who

   Professional team

   Evidence

   Measured

   Applies to

   Current

   Observed on

   Codex with GPT-5.5 at xhigh effort, run against Claude Code with Opus 4.8

7. Mixed

   Alexander Stolle, Director Data & AI at XING

   Alexander Stolle - From Intentional Sprawl to a Deliberate Stack: Rolling Out CodexConference talk, Agentic Hamburg (YouTube)

   XING consolidated the whole company on ChatGPT Enterprise and Codex, and accepted trade-offs from token limits to missing IDE autocompletion to get there.

   "Codex IDE is not supporting autocomp completion at all and interestingly the the whole test group looking at Codex before they didn't check this at all so because no one of us was using this so right you're using codeex CLI or…"

   Published Sep 23, 2026self-described: XING, company-wide consolidation on ChatGPT Enterprise and Codex

   Practitioner account, self-described; ran the rollout; counts toward Operational control How GILD checked it

   Origin

   Published practitioner account

   Checked

   Self-described; Customer of Codex; Ran the rollout; Observed on GPT4 five 54; Specific details

   Role

   Name self-described; employer self-described; role unknown

   Relationship

   customer (self disclosed)

   How they know

   Ran the rollout

   Support

   No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

   Date and version

   2026-09-23, GPT4 five 54

   Counts toward

   Operational control, execution control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

   Counts toward

   Operational control, admin control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

   Counts toward

   Operational control, data control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

   Not counted

   Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

   Not counted

   Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

   Not counted

   Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: repeats a stronger account in its group

   Not counted

   Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: repeats a stronger account in its group

   Not counted

   Adoption and upkeep, continuity: repeats a stronger account in its group

   Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

   Counts toward, pending a recheck

   • Overall signal
   • Developer Experience: Mixed or negative
   • Usage Limits / Cost: Raised as a concern
   • Speed: Discussed without concern
   • Written conventions make results consistent

   Published on

   Podcasts, Talks & Videos

   Who

   Organization-wide

   Evidence

   Measured

   Applies to

   Needs a recheck

   Observed on

   ChatGPT Enterprise with Codex CLI and IDE extension, centrally managed Codex defaults, AGENTS.md per repo

8. Mixed

   Katie Parrott, staff writer, Every

   Every: Vibe Check, Opus 5.5 Is Pulling Our Codex Converts Back to ClaudeOrganization write-up

   Two Every staff who had switched to Codex in recent months were reconsidering after Opus 5.5; one still prefers the Codex harness, and the CEO still uses Codex for about 80% of his work.

   "I prefer the Codex harness, but I’d rather have a worse harness if I can work with a better model."

   Published Sep 22, 2026self-described: Every staff across evals, design and leadership

   Counts toward

   • Overall signal
   • Developer Experience: Positive
   • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Claude Code as the main tool

   Published on

   Engineering Blogs & Reviews

   Who

   Professional team

   Evidence

   Reported

   Applies to

   Current

   Observed on

   Codex versus Opus 5.5

9. Positive

   Fredrik Dahlgren, Principal Security Engineer at Trail of Bits

   Auditing in the age of (good enough) AICompany engineering blog post, Trail of Bits

   Over six months before a Miden VM audit, Trail of Bits had agents build custom audit tooling such as a decompiler, using Claude for planning and development and Codex for code review, with agent-run regression checks after each new feature.

   "During the development of the decompiler, we alternated between using Claude for planning and development and Codex for code review."

   Published Sep 18, 2026Trail of Bits audit team preparing a Miden VM security review

   Practitioner account, name and role on their organization's own page; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

   Origin

   Published practitioner account

   Checked

   Name and role on their organization's own page; Used it directly; Specific details

   Role

   Name on a page the person does not control; employer on a page the person does not control; role on a page the person does not control (Principal Security Engineer)

   Relationship

   Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

   How they know

   Used it directly

   Support

   No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

   Date and version

   2026-09-18

   Counts toward

   Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

   Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

   Counts toward

   • Overall signal
   • Strongest on scoped, repository-level work
   • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Claude Code as the main tool

   Published on

   Engineering Blogs & Reviews

   Who

   Professional team

   Evidence

   Reported

   Applies to

   Current

   Observed on

   Codex for code review alongside Claude for planning and development

10. Mixed

    iforgotmypasswo, choosing their company's primary AI provider

    Comment on: I-have-ADHD: A skill to stop coding agents from burying the answerHacker News comment

    After testing Astra, the author is switching the company's primary AI provider for its communication and judgment over Claude, while saying Codex has the worse UX.

    Published Sep 9, 2026self-described: Company evaluating a switch of its primary AI provider

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, takes no position How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-09-09

    Not counted

    no aspect: excluded, takes no position on any assessed aspect

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Developer Experience: Mixed or negative
    • Communication & Steering: Discussed without concern
    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Codex as the main tool

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Technical leadership

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex, Astra model

11. Positive

    Riley Collins, software developer at Atomic Object

    Review: Codex Tools for Improving AccessibilityCompany blog post, Atomic Object (Atomic Spin)

    With a broken wrist while moving to a project as its lone developer, relied on Codex dictation and appshots for several weeks to keep working. Dictation sometimes misheard words, and the developer expects to keep using it after healing.

    "Over the past several weeks, I have found Codex tools for improving accessibility very useful…"

    Published Sep 8, 2026Atomic Object, sole developer on a client project while one arm was in a cast

    Practitioner account, name and role on their organization's own page; direct use; counts toward Operational control How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Name and role on their organization's own page; Used it directly

    Role

    Name on a page the person does not control; employer on a page the person does not control; role on a page the person does not control (Software Consultant & Developer)

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-09-08

    Counts toward

    Operational control, execution control: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Developer Experience: Positive

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Professional team

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex app dictation and appshots, Computer Use plugin

12. Mixed

    Jacek Migdal, Quesma

    OpenAI Codex pricing: the US$270 PR a US$200/month sub covers dailyCompany blog post, Quesma Blog

    Quesma put Codex on OpenAI Business seats and one typical PR burned the US$270 overflow within a day; seat plans are far cheaper than tokens, but fast mode cannot be disabled org-wide.

    "On the downside, it is super easy to land in fast mode. I accidentally confirmed it and ran the first half of this change at double rates: $110 of the $283 above was the fast-mode premium. Even worse, it is impossible to disable fast mode across an entire OpenAI Business organization, while Claude requires organizational approval before anyone can turn it on."

    Published Aug 28, 2026self-described: Quesma, company on OpenAI Business ChatGPT & Codex seats; teammates on ChatGPT Pro 20x

    Practitioner account, self-described; structured test; counts toward Operational control, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Customer of Codex; Ran a structured test; Specific details; Observed on OpenAI Business ChatGPT & Codex ($25/seat/month)

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    customer (self disclosed); customer (self disclosed)

    How they know

    Ran a structured test

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-08-28, OpenAI Business ChatGPT & Codex ($25/seat/month)

    Counts toward

    Operational control, admin control: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Not counted

    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Developer Experience: Positive
    • Value for Money: Mixed or negative
    • Usage Limits / Cost: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Professional team

    Evidence

    Measured

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    OpenAI Business ChatGPT & Codex seats, ChatGPT Pro 20x, Codex fast mode

13. Positive

    Yaroslav (Yarik), tech lead for the coding-agent rollout, Superhuman

    How Superhuman Scaled AI Coding Agents Across Their Entire Eng OrgConference talk video

    Superhuman's internal code reviewer launches Codex for a second opinion on especially complex pull requests, beside a Claude Code coordinator over its review agents.

    "…we have a Claude code coordinator that launches um a swarm of agents and also for especially complex merge request or pull request or merge request it launches Codex for a second opinion."

    Published Aug 18, 2026self-described: Superhuman, formerly Grammarly, engineering organization

    Not counted

    Superhuman took part in an early Claude Code beta that Anthropic, which makes a competing product, offered it. Kept in the record; it takes part in no figure.

    Published on

    Podcasts, Talks & Videos

    Who

    Organization-wide

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

14. Mixed

    chang-kr, GitHub user in an organization workspace

    Codex credits consumed ~38,000 to 39,000 overnight with zero tasks issued: recurring bug, cap not enforced, no warning givenGitHub issue on openai/codex

    In an organization workspace, Codex twice consumed about 38,000 to 39,000 credits against monthly caps of 5,000 and 10,000, once overnight with no tasks running. The company issued an internal notice about abnormal credit use.

    "This appears to be affecting multiple accounts within our organization. An internal company-wide notice has been issued regarding abnormal Codex credit consumption."

    Published Aug 13, 2026self-described: Company workspace with organization-set monthly credit caps, VS Code extension

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Operational control, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; Customer of Codex; Used it directly; Specific details

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    customer (self disclosed)

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-08-13

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Counts toward

    Operational control, admin control: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Stability: Mixed or negative
    • Usage Limits / Cost: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Organization-wide

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Organization credit caps of 5,000 and then 10,000

15. Positive

    Brian May, software developer at Atomic Object

    How I Rebuilt My Development Workstation for Agentic WorkCompany blog post, Atomic Object (Atomic Spin)

    Brian May rebuilt his workstation around the terminal with Codex as the agent, giving each thread of work its own Git worktree and tmux session so several agents can run in parallel while he reviews and decides.

    "I wrote a custom utility that orchestrates Git worktrees, tmux, and Codex in the way that works for me."

    Published Aug 8, 2026Atomic Object consultant running several agent threads across client work

    Practitioner account, name and role on their organization's own page; direct use; not counted, takes no position How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Name and role on their organization's own page; Used it directly

    Role

    Name on a page the person does not control; employer on a page the person does not control; role on a page the person does not control (Software Consultant & Developer)

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-08-08

    Not counted

    no aspect: excluded, takes no position on any assessed aspect

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Several tasks at once
    • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Professional team

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex in a terminal workflow with one Git worktree per thread

16. Positive

    ndriscoll, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AIHacker News comment

    An engineer built a team AI docs repo and a listener so Codex, triggered by PagerDuty alerts, investigates code and dashboards and posts bug-fix PRs to Slack for the on-caller to review.

    Published Jul 31, 2026self-described: Engineering team owning production services, using Slack, PagerDuty and Grafana

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; ran the rollout; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Ran the rollout; Specific details

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Ran the rollout

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-07-31

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, context handling: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Adoption and upkeep, setup: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds)

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Requires Strong Review: Discussed without concern
    • Written conventions make results consistent
    • Evaluated as an engineering agent

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Very small team

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex

17. Positive

    safety1st, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Using an open model feels surprisingly goodHacker News comment

    Their team runs Codex and Claude side by side; Codex produces far less unrequested code, which matters for human-reviewed, sensitive business logic.

    Published Jul 28, 2026self-described: Team that uses both Codex and Claude, with human-reviewed delivery

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-07-28

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Code Quality: Positive
    • Requires Strong Review: Discussed without concern
    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Codex as the main tool

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Very small team

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

18. Positive

    suzzer99, tech lead at a very small shop

    Comment on: What is happening to jobs? Separating AI hype from realityHacker News comment

    A tech lead began using Codex on a real feature. It handles SQL, styling and tests so well that the commenter could run the project more efficiently with just themselves and a tester.

    Published Jul 26, 2026self-described: Very small shop; large internal project with a team of about eight

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-07-26

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Codebase Understanding: Positive
    • Faster on self-directed work

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Very small team

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex

19. Positive

    sreekanth850, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Fable 5 vs. GPT-5.6 Sol on an NP-Hard Problem: Does /goal help?Hacker News comment

    Their three-person team left Claude Code, which was slow and failed to fix issues, for Codex; with two Plus accounts per person, work is easier and free of usage anxiety.

    Published Jul 18, 2026self-described: Three-person team selling to local government, 400,000-line repository

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; Customer of Codex; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on codex plus

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    customer (self disclosed); customer (self disclosed)

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-07-18, codex plus

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, context handling: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Value for Money: Positive
    • Usage Limits / Cost: Discussed without concern
    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Codex as the main tool

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Very small team

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Two ChatGPT Plus accounts per team member

20. No opinion stated

    Antaripa Saha and Hamel Husain, evaluation practitioners, Parlance Labs

    Parlance Labs: automated error analysis on 100 production tracesPractitioner write-up

    Given the same prompt and 100 masked production traces, general coding agents including Codex were competitive with three observability platforms at finding the labelled failures.

    "General-purpose coding agents like Claude Code, Codex, and Factory Droid were competitive with the platforms. They received the same prompt and the same masked traces."

    Published Jul 11, 2026self-described: 100 masked production traces from an apartment-leasing assistant

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Very small team

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

21. Positive

    Rogerio Chaves, Co-founder and CTO at LangWatch

    Codex vs Claude Code: Which Is the Better Background Agent? (2026)Company engineering blog post, LangWatch

    After months of running both at LangWatch, Chaves keeps Claude Code as the builder for its background agents. Codex is the reviewer, surfacing the most P1 and P2 findings, such as a spend query missing its tenant filter. Automatic Codex review on every pull request stays off because of cost.

    "After months of running both, our preference has been boringly consistent: Claude Code is better at doing the work, and Codex is the better reviewer of it."

    Published Jul 8, 2026LangWatch, lean engineering team running a fleet of scheduled background agents

    Practitioner account, name and role on their organization's own page; ran the rollout; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Operational control How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Name and role on their organization's own page; Customer of Codex; Ran the rollout; Artifact checked (organization page)

    Role

    Name on a page the person does not control; employer on a page the person does not control; role on a page the person does not control (Co-founder & CTO)

    Relationship

    customer (self disclosed)

    How they know

    Ran the rollout

    Support

    3 artifacts (organization page)

    Date and version

    2026-07-08

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Operational control, execution control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Operational control, models and deployment: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Pull Request Review: Positive
    • Usage Limits / Cost: Discussed without concern
    • Requires Strong Review: Discussed without concern
    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Claude Code as the main tool
    • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Technical leadership

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

22. No opinion stated

    Matei Zaharia, co-founder, Databricks

    Latent Space: Matei Zaharia of Databricks at Data + AI Summit 2026Podcast episode with publisher transcript

    Databricks' developer infrastructure team built Isaac, a wrapper over Codex and Claude Code that runs either in web sandboxes or on engineers' machines.

    "…they built something called Isaac, that’s like a wrapper on Claude Code and Codex, and, lets you use them either on the web in, like, sandboxes or, just on your dev machine or on your laptop or whatever."

    Published Jun 24, 2026self-described: Databricks developer infrastructure

    Published on

    Podcasts, Talks & Videos

    Who

    Organization-wide

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

23. Mixed

    Scott Chacon, co-founder of GitButler

    Grit: rewriting Git in Rust with agentsCompany blog post, GitButler (Butler's Log)

    GitButler's co-founder ported Git to Rust by running several coding agents for months. In /goal mode Codex kept working where Claude often stalled, though he found both goal modes slower than his own prompting loop, and his Codex subscription tokens ran out in the final days.

    "Codex running in /goal mode seemed to keep working and getting stuff done."

    Published Jun 9, 2026GitButler, months-long port of Git to a Rust library run through several coding agents

    Practitioner account, name and role on their organization's own page; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Name and role on their organization's own page; Used it directly

    Role

    Name on a page the person does not control; employer on a page the person does not control; role on a page the person does not control (co-founder of GitHub and GitButler)

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-06-09

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Reliability, run stability: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance, C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Long-Running Autonomy: Positive
    • Usage Limits / Cost: Raised as a concern
    • Speed: Raised as a concern
    • How much should Codex complete before a human checkpoint?: Broader delegation

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Technical leadership

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex /goal mode, compared with Claude Code goal mode

24. Positive

    Claire Morrison and Katie Fifer, Technically Curious

    Codex Is ExcellentNewsletter post, Technically Curious (Substack)

    Two long-time Claude Code users now favor Codex with GPT-5.5 for detailed work and long threads thanks to better compaction, while still preferring Claude for original design and writing.

    Published May 27, 2026self-described: Two co-authors using Codex for personal coding projects and business work

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability, Operational control, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on GPT-5.5

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-05-27, GPT-5.5

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Reliability, run stability: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Operational control, execution control: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Adoption and upkeep, setup: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Adoption and upkeep, ongoing upkeep: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Code Quality: Positive
    • Developer Experience: Positive
    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Codex as the main tool
    • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Very small team

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex app, GPT-5.5

25. Negative

    z2, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Outsourcing plus local AI will soon become more economical vs. frontier labsHacker News comment

    The author's company saw OpenAI credit usage double on ChatGPT Business although only 2% of staff use Codex, with overage billed above API rates.

    Published May 26, 2026self-described: Company on ChatGPT Business with a small share of staff using Codex

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; second-hand; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; Customer of Codex; Second-hand; Specific details

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    customer (self disclosed)

    How they know

    Reports others' experience

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-05-26

    Not counted

    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Usage Limits / Cost: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Organization-wide

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    ChatGPT Business credits, Codex

26. Mixed

    submeta, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: AI subscriptions are a ticking time bomb for enterpriseHacker News comment

    After a company rollout of ChatGPT with Codex, the author used it happily for two months until IT flagged 400 million tokens and a bill of at least a thousand euros.

    Published May 17, 2026self-described: Employee at a company that rolled out ChatGPT with Codex

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-05-17

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Usage Limits / Cost: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Organization-wide

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    ChatGPT with Codex (company rollout)

27. Mixed

    jillesvangurp, developer at a company that helps small teams adopt agentic AI

    Comment on: Claude for Small BusinessHacker News comment

    A developer onboarding their non-developer CEO to Codex says it lets the CEO handle website and business tasks themselves, though it is painful because of git, repositories and permission friction.

    Published May 14, 2026self-described: Small company; onboarding its non-developer CEO to Codex for website, inbox, sales and accounting work

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; ran the rollout; counts toward Operational control, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Ran the rollout

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Ran the rollout

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-05-14

    Counts toward

    Adoption and upkeep, setup: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Operational control, admin control: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds)

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Developer Experience: Mixed or negative
    • Written conventions make results consistent

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Very small team

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex with skills

28. Positive

    Justin Boitano, vice president and general manager of enterprise computing at NVIDIA

    OpenAI's New GPT-5.5 Powers Codex on NVIDIA Infrastructure, and NVIDIA Is Already Putting It to WorkCompany blog post, NVIDIA Blog

    NVIDIA says over 10,000 employees use GPT-5.5 Codex on per-employee cloud VMs with read-only production access, reporting multi-day debugging cycles closing in hours.

    Published Apr 23, 2026self-described: NVIDIA, over 10,000 employees across functions using Codex; per-employee cloud VMs

    Practitioner account, self-described; second-hand; not counted, tied to the vendor How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Codex partner: not counted as independent; Second-hand; Observed on GPT-5.5; Specific details

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    investor (suspected); partner (self disclosed)

    How they know

    Reports others' experience

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-04-23, GPT-5.5

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: excluded, praise from someone tied to the vendor, kept as an attributed position

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, context handling: excluded, praise from someone tied to the vendor, kept as an attributed position

    Not counted

    Operational control, data control: excluded, praise from someone tied to the vendor, kept as an attributed position

    Not counted

    Operational control, models and deployment: excluded, praise from someone tied to the vendor, kept as an attributed position

    Not counted

    Operational control, execution control: excluded, praise from someone tied to the vendor, kept as an attributed position

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Not counted

    NVIDIA, the author's employer, is an OpenAI investor and infrastructure partner. Kept in the record; it takes part in no figure.

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Organization-wide

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex app with GPT-5.5, remote SSH to approved cloud VMs, Skills

29. Positive

    Mikhail Parakhin, CTO, Shopify

    Latent Space: Shopify with CTO Mikhail ParakhinPodcast episode with publisher transcript

    Shopify's internal usage chart shows command-line agents such as Codex and Claude Code taking off since December 2025, while IDE tools grow more slowly.

    "The other thing I would claim you could see is that, uh, CLI-based tools and tools that don’t require you to look at the code becoming more popular, and you could see, yeah, various versions of, uh, Cloud Code and Codex and Pi and internal development tools taking off."

    Published Apr 22, 2026self-described: Shopify, every employee chooses their coding tool

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Evaluated as an engineering agent

    Published on

    Podcasts, Talks & Videos

    Who

    Organization-wide

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

30. Negative

    trueno, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Claude Opus 4.7Hacker News comment

    Ran a three-day Codex pilot with a coworker; it fell well short of Claude on accuracy and problem solving and is not replacing their Claude tooling.

    Published Apr 16, 2026self-described: Works with a coworker; their current toolset is Claude

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-04-16

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Code Quality: Mixed or negative
    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Claude Code as the main tool

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Very small team

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

31. Positive

    Long Yinan, software engineer at VoidZero

    How we made the Angular Compiler faster using AICompany engineering blog post, VoidZero

    Building VoidZero's Oxc Angular Compiler, the engineer wrote code with Claude Code and used Codex for systematic review, finding it better at reviewing a large project. The team fed Codex findings back for about three weeks, until Codex found no serious issues, and then open-sourced the compiler.

    "It excels at reviewing large projects because it has built-in context compression techniques…"

    Published Apr 10, 2026VoidZero Oxc team, two-month Rust port of the Angular compiler

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Used it directly; Artifact checked (transcript)

    Role

    Name self-described; employer self-described; role self-described (Software Engineer)

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    1 artifact (transcript)

    Date and version

    2026-04-10

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, context handling: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Codebase Understanding: Positive
    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Claude Code as the main tool

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Professional team

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex for systematic review, Claude Code for implementation

32. Mixed

    Beehive Innovations, makers of 2Do and BusyCal (GitHub organization account)

    AGENTS.md is silently truncated and instructions near the end ignoredGitHub issue on openai/codex

    Codex cut AGENTS.md at 32 KB, about 600 to 800 lines, without any warning, so instructions near the end never reached the model; Claude Code warns when CLAUDE.md is too large.

    "Users assume Codex is unreliable or that AGENTS.md doesn't work properly, when in reality their instructions are being silently clipped."

    Published Mar 3, 2026self-described: App maker with a large AGENTS.md, Pro plan on macOS

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on 0.108.0-alpha.3

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-03-03, 0.108.0-alpha.3

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, context handling: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    • Developer Experience: Mixed or negative
    • Inconsistent Results: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Professional team

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Needs a recheck

    Observed on

    Codex CLI 0.108.0-alpha.3, Pro, gpt-5.3-codex

33. Positive

    Someone1234, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Ask HN: Who has seen productivity increases from AIHacker News comment

    A team feeds legacy app definitions through a multi-step Codex pipeline that outputs roughly 90% working React pages; developers fix and review, raising throughput from one to three pages a week.

    Published Feb 24, 2026self-described: Team rewriting a legacy 1990s RAD application into React

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; ran the rollout; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Ran the rollout; Specific details

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Ran the rollout

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-02-24

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Requires Strong Review: Discussed without concern
    • Strongest on scoped, repository-level work
    • Evaluated as an engineering agent

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Very small team

    Evidence

    Measured

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Multi-process Codex pipeline

34. Mixed

    Matthias Tamegger and Lukas Knoch-Girstmair, engineers at Bitmovin

    Hackathon Spotlight: AI-Assisted Jira Workflows and One-Shot Fixes with Kotlin Koog and OpenAI CodexEngineering blog post, Bitmovin blog

    Bitmovin engineers wired Codex, run non-interactively in Docker, to turn Jira tickets into tested pull requests. It often gave a good starting point but sometimes unusable output, so it suits only small fixes.

    Published Feb 23, 2026self-described: Bitmovin company-wide hackathon; Jira-ticket-to-pull-request one-shot fix workflow running Codex non-interactively in Docker

    Practitioner account, self-described; ran the rollout; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Operational control How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Ran the rollout; Specific details

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Ran the rollout

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-02-23

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Operational control, execution control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Inconsistent Results: Raised as a concern
    • Strongest on scoped, repository-level work
    • Evaluated as an engineering agent
    • How much should Codex complete before a human checkpoint?: Broader delegation

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Professional team

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    OpenAI Codex agent in non-interactive mode inside a Docker environment

35. Positive

    Dan Shipper, co-founder and CEO of Every, with staff writer Katie Parrott

    Vibe Check: We Tested OpenAI's New Codex AppNewsletter, Every

    Every's team found the Codex desktop app the first coding GUI that feels like progress; the CEO moved to a 50-50 split with Claude Code, though one GM prefers terminal handoffs.

    Published Feb 2, 2026self-described: Every team Reach Test with its engineering lead and the general managers of Monologue and Cora

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; not counted, takes no position How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Used it directly; Observed on Codex desktop app

    Role

    Name self-described; employer self-described; role self-described (Cofounder & CEO)

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-01-28, Codex desktop app

    Not counted

    no aspect: excluded, takes no position on any assessed aspect

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Developer Experience: Positive
    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Codex as the main tool
    • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Very small team

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex desktop app (Mac)

36. Mixed

    James Reggio, CTO at Brex

    Full Story of Brex’s AI Hail MaryPodcast episode show notes and transcript, Latent Space

    Brex buys a few seats of several coding tools and lets engineers pick. Its CTO reports that engineers saw Codex as better at code generation but a little slower, and that fewer of them now switch, with some staying on Claude Code because they know it well.

    "…when Codex came out and everybody was like, oh, Codex is better at CodeGen, but it’s a little bit slower."

    Published Jan 17, 2026Brex engineering, where employees choose among several licensed coding tools

    Practitioner account, name and role on an outside page; opinion; not counted, takes no position How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Name and role on an outside page; Opinion

    Role

    Name on a page the person does not control; employer on a page the person does not control; role on a page the person does not control (CTO @ Brex)

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Opinion, no use stated

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-01-17

    Not counted

    no aspect: excluded, takes no position on any assessed aspect

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Code Quality: Positive
    • Speed: Raised as a concern
    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Claude Code as the main tool

    Published on

    Podcasts, Talks & Videos

    Who

    Technical leadership

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

37. Positive

    Kelsey Brennan, software developer at Atomic Object

    Why I’m Sold on AI for Code ReviewsCompany blog post, Atomic Object (Atomic Spin)

    Kelsey Brennan's client project team runs Codex through codex exec in GitHub Actions to review pull requests against the project's written rules. Over a few months, 60 to 70 percent of its comments were solid findings worth addressing, though a person still needs project context to judge them.

    "We have a GitHub Actions workflow that generates the prompt and passes it to Codex using codex exec…"

    "…over the last few months I’ve found that 60 to 70% of the AI’s comments are solid findings that I choose to address…"

    Published Dec 30, 2025Atomic Object client project team with a Django backend and shared Cursor rules

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Used it directly; Specific details

    Role

    Name self-described; employer self-described; role unknown

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-12-30

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, context handling: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Pull Request Review: Positive
    • Requires Strong Review: Discussed without concern
    • Written conventions make results consistent

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Professional team

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    codex exec in a GitHub Actions workflow that posts pull request review comments

38. Positive

    tunesmith, director-level engineering manager

    Comment on: Your job is to deliver code you have proven to workHacker News comment

    A director had Codex investigate a bug their LLM-averse team had blamed on a vendor; Codex prepared a PR, and the team reviewed it and agreed it was a valid fix.

    Published Dec 19, 2025self-described: Leads a team of direct reports; a bug the team had attributed to an external vendor

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-12-19

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Code Quality: Positive
    • Codebase Understanding: Positive
    • Requires Strong Review: Discussed without concern

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Technical leadership

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    Codex

39. Positive

    Steve Sewell, co-founder and CEO of Builder.io

    Codex vs Claude Code: which is the better AI coding agent?Company blog post, Builder.io blog

    Builder.io's CEO prefers Codex mainly for its GitHub app, whose auto reviews find real bugs where Claude Code's GitHub reviews disappointed their dev team, plus pricing and limits.

    Published Sep 28, 2025self-described: Builder.io dev team; Codex also built into Builder.io for designers and PMs

    Vendor material, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Operational control, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Vendor material

    Checked

    Self-described; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months; Specific details

    Role

    Name self-described; employer self-described; role unknown

    Relationship

    vendor published (self disclosed)

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-09-28, GPT-5.3-Codex, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Operational control, execution control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Operational control, models and deployment: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Developer Experience: Positive
    • Pull Request Review: Positive
    • Value for Money: Positive
    • Usage Limits / Cost: Discussed without concern
    • Speed: Discussed without concern
    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Codex as the main tool

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Technical leadership

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Still applicable

    Observed on

    Codex CLI, Codex GitHub app with auto code review, GPT-5 Codex model family

40. Negative

    Alex Ghiculescu, co-founder of Tanda

    AI coding: plateauing but also acceleratingNewsletter post, Alex Ghiculescu (Substack)

    Tanda's co-founder tried Codex in the cloud and found the feedback loop too slow to work with. Some prompts return a pull request that needs no changes, but any follow-up seems to rebuild the whole environment, which he calls a night and day difference from Claude Code on his machine.

    "The implementation is so slow that it feels unworkable."

    Published Aug 18, 2025Tanda engineering, comparing Codex cloud tasks with Claude Code

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Name self-described; employer self-described; role unknown

    Relationship

    customer (self disclosed)

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-08-18, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    • Overall signal
    • Speed: Raised as a concern
    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Claude Code as the main tool
    • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Technical leadership

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Needs a recheck

    Observed on

    Codex cloud version, August 2025

41. Mixed

    Mitch Alderson, Render

    Testing AI coding agents (2025): Cursor vs. Claude, OpenAI, and GeminiIndependent benchmark, Render engineering blog

    Scored Codex CLI 5 out of 10 on Render's vibe-coding test after 4 follow-up error prompts, and says its UX felt "somewhat primitive" next to the tools tested before it; in an existing service repository its connection retry code was idiomatic, easy to read and correct first try.

    "Codex performed admirably, but the UX felt somewhat primitive compared to the other tools tested so far…"

    Published Aug 12, 2025self-described: Render engineering, vibe-coding task and tasks in a production Go repository

    Practitioner account; structured test; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Ran a structured test; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Name unknown; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Ran a structured test

    Support

    1 artifact (benchmark output)

    Date and version

    2025-08-12, o4, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, context handling: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, measured outcomes: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control

    Counts toward

    Adoption and upkeep, setup: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    • Overall signal
    • Code Quality: Positive
    • Developer Experience: Mixed or negative
    • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Professional team

    Evidence

    Measured

    Applies to

    Needs a recheck

    Observed on

    Codex CLI with o4-era models

42. Positive

    Ryan Cox, Senior Director of Infrastructure and Security at Temporal

    Improving our Java SDK with Codex by OpenAIEngineering blog post, Temporal blog

    Temporal's engineers used Codex to clear long-standing Java SDK issues, batching backlog tasks before lunch or end of day, and added AGENTS.md files to prepare repos for agents.

    Published May 17, 2025self-described: Temporal SDK and server repositories; engineers across the company

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Codex partner: not counted as independent; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months; Specific details

    Role

    Name self-described; employer self-described; role unknown

    Relationship

    program member (self disclosed); partner (self disclosed)

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    1 artifact (pull request)

    Date and version

    2025-05-17, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: excluded, praise from someone tied to the vendor, kept as an attributed position

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    • Overall signal
    • Requires Strong Review: Discussed without concern
    • Written conventions make results consistent
    • Several tasks at once
    • Evaluated as an engineering agent
    • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Delegated cloud tasks

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Technical leadership

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Needs a recheck

    Observed on

    Codex cloud at its May 2025 launch

43. Positive

    johnjwang, Hacker News commenter testing Codex with their team at Assembled

    Comment on the Hacker News launch thread for Codex (May 2025)Hacker News comment

    Says Codex shines at running dozens of small edits in parallel, like an unlimited pool of junior engineers, though output still needs work to be production ready.

    Published May 16, 2025self-described: Assembled, engineering team in the Codex alpha test

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; Codex partner: not counted as independent; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    program member (self disclosed)

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-05-16, alpha test, needs a recheck

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: excluded, praise from someone tied to the vendor, kept as an attributed position

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    • Overall signal
    • Requires Strong Review: Raised as a concern
    • Strongest on scoped, repository-level work
    • Several tasks at once
    • Evaluated as an engineering agent

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Professional team

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Needs a recheck

    Observed on

    Codex (cloud, alpha test)

44. Positive

    Dan Shipper, co-founder and CEO of Every

    Vibe Check: Codex, OpenAI's New Coding AgentNewsletter, Every

    Every's CEO shipped a Cora feature through Codex within an hour; the team found it rough but useful, best for tech leads working on existing codebases and less suited to new apps.

    Published May 16, 2025self-described: Every; tested with Kieran Klaassen, Cora general manager, on Cora's Rails codebase

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Operational control How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

    Role

    Name self-described; employer self-described; role self-described (Cofounder & CEO)

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2025-05-16, research preview, needs a recheck

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, context handling: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Operational control, execution control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    • Overall signal
    • Developer Experience: Mixed or negative
    • Evaluated as an engineering agent
    • Faster on self-directed work
    • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Delegated cloud tasks

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Very small team

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Needs a recheck

    Observed on

    Codex cloud at its May 2025 launch in ChatGPT

45. No opinion stated

    Zealousideal-Alps-71, Reddit r/codex poster on the US$500 Pro plan

    3 days left before pro accounts get halvedReddit post

    On the US$500 Pro plan, running 8 concurrent tasks lasts about 16 to 18 hours, and the poster expects that to halve when Pro limits drop, after earlier running agents around the clock on two US$200 accounts.

    Published Oct 28, 2026self-described: Solo, 8 concurrent tasks across several projects

    Not counted

    Its author's ties to the vendor have not been checked. Kept in the record; it takes part in no figure.

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    US$500 Pro plan, GPT-6.1 Sol and GPT-6 Luna

46. Mixed

    Anton Kozheltsev, GitHub user on ChatGPT Prolite

    Severe weekly allowance regression: GPT-6 Astra High/Fast exhausts weekly quota in one dayGitHub issue on openai/codex

    One ZITADEL staging upgrade and migration check used his whole weekly Prolite allowance in a day, about 146 million main-agent tokens against 22 to 35 million on earlier days.

    "On October 19, 2026, my entire weekly Codex allowance was exhausted during a single ZITADEL staging upgrade and migration validation workflow."

    Published Oct 19, 2026self-described: ZITADEL staging upgrade and migration check, Codex desktop on macOS

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on 26.1013.40934; Codex core 0.163.0-alpha.10.2; gpt-6-astra

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-10-19, 26.1013.40934; Codex core 0.163.0-alpha.10.2; gpt-6-astra

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Usage Limits / Cost: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Measured

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex Desktop 26.1013.40934, Prolite, gpt-6-astra High in Fast mode

47. Negative

    CountSessine, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Codex Desktop continuously generates Crashpad pending dumpsHacker News comment

    Finds GPT-6 Astra as good as or better than Opus 5.5 for code at work, but calls the Codex harness itself hot garbage and plans to run Astra through OpenCode instead.

    Published Oct 18, 2026self-described: Developer using Astra at work

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, takes no position How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-10-18

    Not counted

    no aspect: excluded, takes no position on any assessed aspect

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Code Quality: Positive
    • Developer Experience: Mixed or negative

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

48. Mixed

    A Codex Desktop user and ChatGPT subscriber, GitHub openai/codex

    GitHub issue: credits added separately from the weekly allowanceGitHub issue

    A ChatGPT subscriber reports an OpenAI email adding US$500 worth of credits, 12,500 credits, to the account separately from the normal weekly allowance.

    "The email says OpenAI added $500 worth of credits (12,500 credits) to my account, separate from the normal weekly allowance, with an expiration date of January 20, 2027."

    Published Oct 16, 2026self-described: Codex Desktop on a ChatGPT plan

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Usage Limits / Cost: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

49. Negative

    aleqs, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Incident with Git Operations, Pull Requests and Actions - ResolvedHacker News comment

    Liked Codex beside Claude Code at first, but now calls it unusable: sessions mix contexts, it drops into read-only sandbox mode, gets interrupted and is very slow.

    Published Oct 7, 2026self-described: uses Codex alongside Claude Code

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Reliability, Operational control How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Observed on 20x pro plan; Specific details

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-10-07, 20x pro plan

    Counts toward

    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Operational control, execution control: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds)

    Not counted

    Reliability, service availability: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Long-Running Autonomy: Mixed or negative
    • Stability: Mixed or negative
    • Needs Close Steering: Raised as a concern
    • Speed: Raised as a concern
    • Inconsistent Results: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex, ChatGPT Pro (20x)

50. Positive

    Felipe Coimbra, Venture Architect

    Codex Cloud, and a Week of Work Before Getting Out of BedPersonal blog post, felipe.ai

    Coimbra starts several Codex Cloud tasks from a phone before getting out of bed, then reviews the results and keeps final decisions. The account describes calendar compression and offers no productivity benchmark.

    Published Sep 30, 2026self-described: Solo projects; queues Codex Cloud work from a phone and reviews the results later

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Used it directly; Observed on Codex Cloud

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-09-30, Codex Cloud

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Several tasks at once
    • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Delegated cloud tasks
    • How much should Codex complete before a human checkpoint?: Broader delegation

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex Cloud from mobile

51. No opinion stated

    Zhenyu Qi and co-authors, software engineering researchers

    Merged, Not Measured: An Empirical Study of Performance Issues Fixed by Coding AgentsIndependent study, arXiv

    Finds 73% of 408 Codex performance fixes were accepted, with the human operator who opens a Codex PR usually merging the fix; across agents, 9 of 30 re-executed merged fixes showed no significant gain or regressed.

    "…for Codex, Cursor and Claude Code, the PR account is the human operator, who usually merges the fix…"

    Published Sep 29, 2026self-described: Agent performance fixes in public repositories, AIDev dataset

    Practitioner account; structured test; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Ran a structured test; Artifact checked (benchmark output)

    Role

    Name unknown; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Ran a structured test

    Support

    1 artifact (benchmark output)

    Date and version

    2026-09-29

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, measured outcomes: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Requires Strong Review: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Measured

    Applies to

    Current

52. Mixed

    Huppie, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: GPT-6 Sol and LunaHacker News comment

    Runs Codex as a commit-time reviewer from a Claude Code hook with good, complementary feedback, but on harder tasks it burns through its usage limit very quickly.

    Published Sep 22, 2026self-described: Own projects; Codex reviews commits made with Claude Code

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Observed on Astra Medium

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-09-22, Astra Medium

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Pull Request Review: Positive
    • Value for Money: Positive
    • Usage Limits / Cost: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex, GPT-6 Astra (medium), US$20 plan

53. Negative

    insightlabs38, OpenAI Developer Community user

    Codex Cloud/Web has compounding reliability, observability, and workflow problems that make long-running tasks difficult to trustForum post

    Argues Codex Cloud cannot be trusted for long tasks: little visibility into commands or live diffs, unstable runtime state, lost background processes and unreliable Git handoff.

    Published Sep 13, 2026self-described: Development work in Codex Cloud on ChatGPT Plus

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability, Operational control, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; Used it directly; Observed on ChatGPT Plus; Specific details

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-09-13, ChatGPT Plus

    Counts toward

    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Operational control, models and deployment: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance, C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Developer Experience: Mixed or negative
    • Long-Running Autonomy: Mixed or negative
    • Stability: Mixed or negative
    • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Delegated cloud tasks

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex Cloud, ChatGPT Plus

54. No opinion stated

    hightrix, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Cognition launches new SWE-2 model, Rivaling Fable 5.1 and GPT-AstraHacker News comment

    Their company has used Devin on enterprise seats for about nine months alongside Claude and Codex, and they find Claude and Codex much better.

    Published Sep 10, 2026self-described: Company with enterprise seats for Devin, Claude and Codex

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-09-10

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

55. Negative

    Armin Ronacher, developer

    Astra for Coding: Why Are We Doing This Again?Personal blog post, lucumr.pocoo.org (Armin Ronacher's Thoughts and Writings)

    Ran a Codex harness software factory with Astra and zero oversight for 35 hours: 79 commits, around 1200 USD in raw API costs and nothing of value. Says Astra has shown it will commit slop, so he does not trust it much and reviews it more.

    "35 hours later, the factory has delivered absolutely nothing of value…"

    Published Sep 7, 2026self-described: Solo weekend experiment running an unattended agent 'software factory' on a CPython fork, plus regular programming

    Practitioner account, self-described; structured test; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Ran a structured test; Specific details; Observed on GPT 6 Astra

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Ran a structured test

    Support

    1 artifact (transcript)

    Date and version

    2026-09-07, GPT 6 Astra

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Code Quality: Mixed or negative
    • Long-Running Autonomy: Mixed or negative
    • Value for Money: Mixed or negative
    • Usage Limits / Cost: Raised as a concern
    • Requires Strong Review: Raised as a concern
    • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app
    • How much should Codex complete before a human checkpoint?: Tighter steering

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Measured

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex harness with the Astra model, ChatGPT subscription

56. Negative

    Jessica Doering, developer

    The Codex 5-Hour Limit Is Making It Practically Unusabledev.to post, DEV Community

    On ChatGPT Plus, one ordinary Find and Replace task used the whole 5-hour Codex allowance in about 24 minutes and stopped mid-verification, which Doering argues makes Codex almost useless.

    Published Aug 30, 2026self-described: Solo, adding a feature to their own editor app

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on Plus

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, author profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-08-30, Plus

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Long-Running Autonomy: Positive
    • Usage Limits / Cost: Raised as a concern
    • Evaluated as an engineering agent

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Measured

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex, ChatGPT Plus

57. Positive

    DHH, CTO, 37signals

    Lex Fridman Podcast #501: DHH on the future of programming and agentic engineeringPodcast episode with publisher transcript

    DHH ends every agent job with a Codex review at xhigh effort and calls Codex his favorite checker because it keeps finding problems, while he drives the work in Claude Code.

    "Codex is very good. I use it all the time. It’s my favorite checker. It keeps finding stuff. It’s great. But one of the things I’ve found that I like so much about the current Claude models is they’re really good writers out of the box."

    Published Aug 26, 2026self-described: 37signals and Omarchy, his own agent work

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Code Quality: Positive
    • Pull Request Review: Positive
    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Claude Code as the main tool

    Published on

    Podcasts, Talks & Videos

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex at xhigh effort as reviewer

58. Mixed

    Dan Masquelier, engineer on a team using Codex Cloud code review

    Let Codex review draft PRs before they are ready for human reviewGitHub issue on openai/codex

    Automatic Codex Cloud review waits until a pull request is marked ready, so his team must invite human reviewers early or go without Codex review on drafts; Cursor Bugbot reviews drafts.

    "Ready for review should mean ready for human review, not ready for the automated reviewer to start."

    Published Aug 25, 2026self-described: Team keeping pull requests in draft while bots review them

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, takes no position How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    customer (self disclosed)

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-08-25

    Not counted

    no aspect: excluded, takes no position on any assessed aspect

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Developer Experience: Mixed or negative
    • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Delegated cloud tasks

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex Cloud GitHub code review

59. Positive

    Chris Raroque, independent app developer

    Lets talk about Codex (why i switched)Video, YouTube

    After recommending Claude Code for over a year, now primarily uses Codex in the ChatGPT Mac app for background computer use and the mobile experience; on GPT 5.6 Sol ultra, usually burns a week of usage in about 3 days, so pays for two US$200 subscriptions.

    "…in about 3 days. And that is the primary reason I'm paying for two $200 Codex subscriptions. Okay, enough hyping computer use. The second biggest reason I switched to Codex in terms of the amazing experience is the mobile experience. Now, Claude code does…"

    Published Aug 24, 2026self-described: Solo, their own iOS and productivity apps

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on GPT 5.6 Soul on ultra mode

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, author profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-08-24, GPT 5.6 Soul on ultra mode

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Reliability, run stability: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Developer Experience: Positive
    • Long-Running Autonomy: Positive
    • Usage Limits / Cost: Raised as a concern
    • Several tasks at once
    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Codex as the main tool
    • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app

    Published on

    Podcasts, Talks & Videos

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex in the ChatGPT Mac app, Codex mobile remote, computer use, two US$200 Codex subscriptions, GPT-5.6 Sol on ultra

60. Negative

    ThePhysicist, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: GPT 5.6 Sol 20% price reductionHacker News comment

    Spent days on a UI redesign with Codex and Sol as it made piecemeal changes and kept asking for confirmation; Claude Code finished it within a day.

    Published Aug 22, 2026self-described: Own UI redesign

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Observed on Sol

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-08-22, Sol

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Usage Limits / Cost: Raised as a concern
    • Needs Close Steering: Raised as a concern
    • Speed: Raised as a concern
    • Communication & Steering: Raised as a concern
    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Claude Code as the main tool

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex, GPT-5.6 Sol

61. Mixed

    returnInfinity, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: GPT 5.6 Sol 20% price reductionHacker News comment

    At their company everyone has unlimited Codex and Claude, and people still stick to Claude Code.

    Published Aug 22, 2026self-described: Company with unlimited Codex and Claude access

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; opinion; not counted, takes no position How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Opinion

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Opinion, no use stated

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-08-22

    Not counted

    no aspect: excluded, takes no position on any assessed aspect

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Claude Code as the main tool

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

62. Positive

    rshnotsecure, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Anthropic appears to be A/B testing reduced effort levels in Claude CodeHacker News comment

    Got approved for ChatGPT Pro at work to use Codex after expecting to stay on Claude Code. They were blown away by its speed, which they credit to routing requests to the right model.

    Published Aug 22, 2026self-described: Developer approved for ChatGPT Pro at work

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Observed on ChatGPT Pro

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-08-22, ChatGPT Pro

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Fast Runs: Positive
    • Speed: Discussed without concern
    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Codex as the main tool

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

63. Mixed

    Lucian Ghinda, Ruby and Rails developer

    Quick impressions: A week of using Codex more than ClaudePersonal newsletter post, All about coding

    Using Codex TUI (gpt-5.6-sol xhigh) more than Claude Code (opus-5 xhigh) for a week, with Claude holding more of his skills, felt Codex made changes faster and simpler, but test reruns and review left no time win; Claude better read his branching intent and Jira setup.

    Published Aug 21, 2026self-described: Solo, own Ruby and Rails projects; week-long side-by-side use

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on gpt-5.6-sol xhigh

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-08-21, gpt-5.6-sol xhigh

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, context handling: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Adoption and upkeep, setup: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Fast Runs: Mixed or negative
    • Speed: Discussed without concern
    • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex TUI with gpt-5.6-sol xhigh and Claude Code TUI with opus-5 xhigh on macOS

64. Positive

    Tim Sehn, CEO of DoltHub

    What's the Best Coding Agent? 2026 EditionCompany engineering blog post, DoltHub Blog

    In August, Sehn ranks Codex first and calls it his daily driver. It gets about five times as much work done per unit of time as Claude, and on a US$100 plan he never nears its limits in six hours of daily use.

    "Codex is extremely cheap compared to Claude for basically the same offering. I never get close to my token budget despite six hours per day of constant usage."

    Published Aug 5, 2026Over 1,500 agent pull requests on DoltLite since May 1, about six hours a day

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Customer of Codex; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on GPT 5.6 Sol

    Role

    Name self-described; employer self-described; role unknown

    Relationship

    customer (self disclosed); customer (self disclosed); customer (self disclosed)

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-08-05, GPT 5.6 Sol

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Code Quality: Positive
    • Value for Money: Positive
    • Fast Runs: Positive
    • Usage Limits / Cost: Discussed without concern
    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Codex as the main tool

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex with GPT 5.6 Sol, US$100 monthly plan

65. Positive

    Anurag Singh, tech journalist, XDA Developers

    XDA Developers: I cancelled Claude after 6 months of daily usePractitioner write-up

    After six months of daily Claude Code use, Singh moved to Codex with GPT-5.6 Sol on the US$20 ChatGPT Plus plan in July 2026 and can work much longer before the limit.

    "However, I’ve been able to work for much longer before hitting the limit, which has given me a better chance of finishing a project without moving it to another coding agent."

    Published Jul 27, 2026self-described: His own coding projects, moved to the US$20 ChatGPT Plus plan

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Value for Money: Positive
    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Codex as the main tool

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    ChatGPT Plus, GPT-5.6 Sol

66. Mixed

    Deleted GitHub account

    GPT-5.6 often serializes independent Code Mode calls; explicit batching reduced weighted usage by 27 to 45%GitHub issue on openai/codex

    In controlled same-model runs on two codebases, an AGENTS.md instruction to batch independent calls cut model cycles by 52 to 55% and weighted usage by 27 to 45%. Plan, prompt, model and effort stayed the same.

    "Within each comparison, the subscription plan, repository state, task prompt, model, reasoning effort and permissions were unchanged."

    Published Jul 24, 2026self-described: Large proprietary work codebase on Business and a personal app on Pro

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; structured test; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Ran a structured test; Observed on 26.721.30844; GPT-5.6 Sol; Artifact checked (benchmark output)

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Ran a structured test

    Support

    2 artifacts (benchmark output)

    Date and version

    2026-07-24, 26.721.30844; GPT-5.6 Sol

    Counts toward

    Reliability, regressions: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G3 (3 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds)

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Usage Limits / Cost: Discussed without concern
    • Written conventions make results consistent

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Measured

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex App 26.721.30844, GPT-5.6 Sol on High, XHigh and Max

67. Mixed

    Mahnoor Faisal, tech writer at XDA Developers

    Codex is technically better than Claude Code, but I stopped using it for one specific reasonFirst-person review column, XDA Developers

    Finds Codex better than Claude Code at backend work and following instructions, and likes the CLI, but its frontend designs are bland, which keeps them from switching for good.

    Published Jul 16, 2026self-described: Solo, building apps with coding agents

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Used it directly

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-07-16

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance, C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Code Quality: Positive
    • Developer Experience: Positive
    • Inconsistent Results: Raised as a concern
    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Claude Code as the main tool

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex CLI

68. Mixed

    boss-ccc, GitHub user

    Perceived regression in Codex quality and higher token consumption with GPT-5.6GitHub issue on openai/codex

    Since moving to GPT-5.6, small targeted tasks sometimes set off broad repository exploration or unrelated refactoring. Fixes that introduce new issues have reduced the author's confidence in letting Codex change code on its own.

    "Fixes can introduce new issues, reducing confidence in allowing the agent to modify code autonomously."

    Published Jul 10, 2026self-described: Day-to-day coding in Codex

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Observed on GPT-5.6

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-07-10, GPT-5.6

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, context handling: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Counts toward

    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    • Overall signal
    • Usage Limits / Cost: Raised as a concern
    • Needs Close Steering: Raised as a concern
    • Inconsistent Results: Raised as a concern
    • How much should Codex complete before a human checkpoint?: Tighter steering

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Needs a recheck

    Observed on

    GPT-5.6 in Codex

69. Mixed

    clutter55561, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: GPT-5.6Hacker News comment

    Uses Codex to review Claude's work, and the company's OpenAI subscription hits its five-hour limit ridiculously fast, while their US$100 Anthropic plan is enough.

    Published Jul 9, 2026self-described: Developer who plans and codes with Claude and reviews with Codex

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-07-09

    Not counted

    Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Pull Request Review: Positive
    • Value for Money: Mixed or negative
    • Usage Limits / Cost: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

70. Positive

    Alessio Fanelli, founder of Kernel Labs

    How I run autonomous coding agents from my phone with OpenAI Symphony + LinearPodcast episode, How I AI (YouTube)

    Runs Codex through OpenAI Symphony on a cloud VPS with Linear as the state machine, looking at the "Vercel preview" and the code at the human-review step without reading agent traces one by one; tracks tokens per task, one of them 221 million.

    Published Jul 6, 2026self-described: Side projects, including tools for their trading card shop, run on a cloud VPS

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Reliability, Operational control How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, author profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-07-06

    Counts toward

    Operational control, execution control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Usage Limits / Cost: Discussed without concern
    • Requires Strong Review: Discussed without concern
    • Several tasks at once
    • Evaluated as an engineering agent
    • How much should Codex complete before a human checkpoint?: Broader delegation

    Published on

    Podcasts, Talks & Videos

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Measured

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    OpenAI Symphony driving Codex from Linear issues on a cloud VPS, Codex with browser access

71. Positive

    saberience, engineer and Hacker News commenter, self-described

    Comment on: Senior SWE-Bench: open-source benchmark that assesses agents as senior engineersHacker News comment

    Calls Codex a surgical instrument that never bloats the codebase, and says Codex reviews of Claude's work routinely find two to five real correctness bugs.

    Published Jul 3, 2026

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-07-03

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Code Quality: Positive
    • Pull Request Review: Positive
    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Codex as the main tool

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

72. Mixed

    vguptaa45, GitHub user

    GPT-5.5 Codex reasoning-token clustering at 516/1034/1552 may be leading to degraded performance on complex tasksGitHub issue on openai/codex

    Across 390,195 response records from 865 sessions, GPT-5.5 responses clustered at exactly 516 reasoning tokens. Mean and P90 reasoning fell from February to June, which the author links to weaker results on complex tasks.

    "Mean and P90 reasoning-token intensity fell from February-April to May-June, while exact-516 clustering rose sharply."

    Published Jun 27, 2026self-described: 390,195 response records from 865 of their own Codex sessions

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; structured test; counts toward Reliability How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Ran a structured test; Artifact checked (dataset); Observed on gpt-5.5

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Ran a structured test

    Support

    1 artifact (dataset)

    Date and version

    2026-06-27, gpt-5.5

    Counts toward

    Reliability, regressions: unfavorable, G3 (3 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    • Inconsistent Results: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Measured

    Applies to

    Needs a recheck

    Observed on

    gpt-5.5, February to June 2026

73. No opinion stated

    vitally3643, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: U.S. government will decide who gets to use GPT-5.6Hacker News comment

    Their company is looking hard at local models to cut its Codex spend.

    Published Jun 26, 2026self-described: Company weighing local models against its Codex spend

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; opinion; not counted, takes no position How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Opinion

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Opinion, no use stated

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-06-26

    Not counted

    no aspect: excluded, takes no position on any assessed aspect

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Usage Limits / Cost: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

74. Mixed

    Mihnea Peteu, solo developer (GitHub profile)

    Codex (gpt-5.5, Plus plan): rate-limit cost per token jumped ~10-20x since June 16, draining the 5h budget in 2-3 promptsGitHub issue on openai/codex

    His session logs show a 57K-token prompt used about 1% of the Plus five-hour budget on June 12. On June 18, during an open OpenAI incident, 20K-token prompts with zero reasoning used 10 to 27% each.

    "Smaller prompts, near-zero reasoning, yet each consumes 10 to 20× more of the 5-hour budget than a 57K-token xhigh prompt did on June 12."

    Published Jun 18, 2026self-described: Solo, Codex desktop on Windows 11

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Artifact checked (log); Observed on gpt-5.5, Plus plan

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    2 artifacts (log)

    Date and version

    2026-06-18, gpt-5.5, Plus plan

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: unfavorable, G3 (3 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: unfavorable, G3 (3 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    • Stability: Mixed or negative
    • Usage Limits / Cost: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Measured

    Applies to

    Needs a recheck

    Observed on

    Codex desktop, Plus, gpt-5.5

75. Mixed

    Rui Fan, Apache Flink PMC member (GitHub profile)

    Codex SQLite feedback logs can write ~640 TB/year and rapidly consume SSD enduranceGitHub issue on openai/codex

    Codex's SQLite logs were the main continuous writer on his machine, about 37 TB in 21 days or roughly 640 TB a year. That is enough to use up a consumer SSD's rated endurance within a year.

    "Process/file-level checks show Codex SQLite logs are the main continuous writer."

    Published Jun 14, 2026self-described: Long-running local Codex use

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Operational control, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Artifact checked (log); Observed on 0.142.0

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    2 artifacts (log)

    Date and version

    2026-06-14, 0.142.0

    Counts toward

    Adoption and upkeep, ongoing upkeep: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Counts toward

    Operational control, data control: unfavorable, G3 (3 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    • Stability: Mixed or negative
    • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Measured

    Applies to

    Needs a recheck

76. Mixed

    Ignat Remizov, CTO at Zolvat (GitHub profile)

    Regression: encrypted MultiAgentV2 messages remove readable task audit trailGitHub issue on openai/codex

    Once MultiAgentV2 encrypted subagent messages, local history no longer shows what task a parent agent gave each child, which he says removes the audit trail needed to review delegated work.

    "The concern is that encrypted delivery should not fully remove local human auditability for subagent delegation."

    Published Jun 13, 2026self-described: Fintech, Codex CLI with MultiAgentV2 subagents

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Reliability How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on post-0.137.0

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    1 artifact (commit)

    Date and version

    2026-06-13, post-0.137.0

    Counts toward

    Reliability, regressions: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Developer Experience: Mixed or negative
    • Requires Strong Review: Discussed without concern

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex CLI after 0.137.0 with MultiAgentV2

77. Positive

    amazingamazing, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Anthropic surpasses OpenAI to become most valuable AI startupHacker News comment

    Implemented pull requests a colleague needed with Codex on GPT-5.5 and Claude Code on Opus 4.7; the colleague, convinced Claude was better, could not tell from the code which tool wrote which.

    Published May 30, 2026self-described: Developer and a colleague comparing Claude Code and Codex on real pull requests

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; structured test; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Ran a structured test; Specific details; Observed on gpt5.5

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Ran a structured test

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-05-30, gpt5.5

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Code Quality: Positive

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

78. Positive

    ninkendo, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Corporate America Is Starting to Ration AI as Cost SkyrocketsHacker News comment

    When a dependency upgrade failed only in CI, Codex pulled the CI logs and compared their local setup with the crate's changes. It found the root cause and patched the container's environment, which they say would have taken them hours.

    Published May 30, 2026self-described: Team service with a Postgres-backed CI pipeline

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-05-30

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Long-Running Autonomy: Positive
    • Evaluated as an engineering agent

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

79. Positive

    toraway, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Anthropic raises $65B in Series H funding at $965B post-money valuationHacker News comment

    Won approval to move their company from Copilot Business to OpenAI Business with Codex before a June 1st billing change; prices would have quadrupled, based on the single month Microsoft "allowed previewing" with its pricing simulator. Legal was slow on Anthropic contracts; calls Codex more or less a 1:1 replacement for Claude Code.

    Published May 29, 2026self-described: Engineer who recommends the company's AI coding subscriptions

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; ran the rollout; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Ran the rollout; Observed on OpenAI Business

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Ran the rollout

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-05-29, OpenAI Business

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Value for Money: Positive

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

80. Positive

    Claire Vo, founder of ChatPRD and host of How I AI

    I let Codex run for 6 hours. Here's what happened.Podcast episode, How I AI (YouTube)

    Used the Codex /goal command for a several-hour run through every Sentry trace of invalid edit operations in ChatPRD, ending with zero errors left and a systematic fix; says her babysitting days with AI are largely over.

    "…fixes all over our edit code. What I got was a systematic fix that integrated every example into a more intelligent framework for how edits should be applied, and ultimately we've had zero edit errors from the time that we used goal here. And so,…"

    Published May 27, 2026self-described: ChatPRD codebase plus personal email and Linear cleanup

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Reliability, Operational control How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on GPT 5.5 medium

    Role

    Name self-described; employer self-described; role self-described (Claire Vo, CPO)

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, author profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-05-27, GPT 5.5 medium

    Counts toward

    Reliability, run stability: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Operational control, models and deployment: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Operational control, execution control: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Code Quality: Positive
    • Long-Running Autonomy: Positive
    • Strongest on scoped, repository-level work
    • Evaluated as an engineering agent
    • How much should Codex complete before a human checkpoint?: Broader delegation

    Published on

    Podcasts, Talks & Videos

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Measured

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex /goal command, Sentry and Vercel error logs, Linear

81. Positive

    Theo Browne (t3.gg), developer who builds T3 Code

    How I code with AI changed a lotVideo, YouTube

    Calls the Codex app the best bet for most people and gets one-prompt features working, but found remote control of the desktop app laggy and unreliable.

    Published May 27, 2026self-described: Solo build of their Lakebed project over five days

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; not counted, tied to the vendor How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Codex partner: not counted as independent; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on GPT-5.5

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    competitor employee (self disclosed); program member (self disclosed)

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-05-27, GPT-5.5

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: excluded, praise from someone tied to the vendor, kept as an attributed position

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, context handling: excluded, praise from someone tied to the vendor, kept as an attributed position

    Not counted

    Reliability, run stability: excluded, criticism from a competitor's side, kept as an attributed position

    Not counted

    Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: excluded, praise from someone tied to the vendor, kept as an attributed position

    Not counted

    Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: excluded, praise from someone tied to the vendor, kept as an attributed position

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Code Quality: Positive
    • Developer Experience: Positive
    • Usage Limits / Cost: Discussed without concern
    • Speed: Raised as a concern
    • Written conventions make results consistent
    • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app

    Published on

    Podcasts, Talks & Videos

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex desktop app, Codex CLI harness via T3 Code, GPT-5.5, fast mode on the Codex subscription

82. Mixed

    Andrés Alvarez, Full Stack Developer at Learnware Cloud (GitHub profile)

    Significant model quality regression in codex-5-5 (xhigh): Instructions not followed, repeated regressions, affects both CLI and IDEGitHub issue on openai/codex

    After an update, Codex at xhigh effort ignored explicit AGENTS.md instructions and reintroduced changes that had already been reviewed and corrected, in both the CLI and the VS Code extension.

    "It produces repeated regressions: changes that were already reviewed and corrected are reintroduced in subsequent turns."

    Published May 26, 2026self-described: Feature work with a detailed AGENTS.md, Codex CLI and VS Code extension

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Observed on codex-5-5 (xhigh)

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-05-26, codex-5-5 (xhigh)

    Counts toward

    Reliability, regressions: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, context handling: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    • Overall signal
    • Code Quality: Mixed or negative
    • Needs Close Steering: Raised as a concern
    • Inconsistent Results: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Needs a recheck

    Observed on

    Codex CLI and IDE extension at xhigh effort

83. Positive

    jillesvangurp, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Using AI to write better code more slowlyHacker News comment

    Covers most of their needs on the US$20 monthly Codex plan and prefers Codex over Claude Code at their resource-constrained company because it gets the job done for less money.

    Published May 26, 2026self-described: Resource-constrained company

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Observed on 5.4 medium; Specific details

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-05-26, 5.4 medium

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Value for Money: Positive
    • Usage Limits / Cost: Discussed without concern
    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Codex as the main tool

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    US$20 monthly plan, GPT-5.4 medium

84. No opinion stated

    Sien Reeve O. Peralta and co-authors, software engineering researchers

    Why Are Agentic Pull Requests Merged or Rejected? An Empirical StudyIndependent study, arXiv

    Finds Codex and Cursor pull requests were typically merged with minimal interaction: of 3,989 human-reviewed Codex PRs, 2,834 were merged, and 165 of 167 inspected merged Codex PRs were coded as having no feedback loop.

    "…with Copilot and Devin more often embedded in reviewer-mediated workflows, while Codex and Cursor PRs were typically merged with minimal interaction…"

    Published May 21, 2026self-described: 9,799 human-reviewed agent pull requests, 717 inspected by hand

    Practitioner account; structured test; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Ran a structured test; Artifact checked (dataset)

    Role

    Name unknown; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Ran a structured test

    Support

    1 artifact (dataset)

    Date and version

    2026-05-21

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, measured outcomes: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Requires Strong Review: Discussed without concern

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Measured

    Applies to

    Still applicable

85. Positive

    superfrank, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Codex is now in the ChatGPT mobile appHacker News comment

    Rates Codex as good as or better than Claude Code overall: far better at code review and catching real bugs, weaker at front end design and big picture planning.

    Published May 15, 2026self-described: Personal projects (Codex); Claude at work

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Reliability How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on GPT 5.5

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-05-15, GPT 5.5

    Counts toward

    Reliability, regressions: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Pull Request Review: Positive
    • Inconsistent Results: Discussed without concern
    • Communication & Steering: Discussed without concern

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex, GPT 5.5

86. Mixed

    Ken Imoto, engineer at Propel-Lab

    Claude Code vs ChatGPT Codex: Two Official Agents, One Choice You Don't Have to Makedev.to post, DEV Community

    After a month with both, Imoto sends well-specified async chores like dependency bumps and tests to Codex cloud, and keeps debugging and anything needing local services in Claude Code.

    Published May 14, 2026self-described: Own projects; ran both agents side by side for a month

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Operational control, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Customer of Codex; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on GPT-5.3 Codex (codex-1 fine-tune of o3)

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    customer (self disclosed); customer (self disclosed)

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-05-14, GPT-5.3 Codex (codex-1 fine-tune of o3)

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Operational control, execution control: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, measured outcomes: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Needs Close Steering: Discussed without concern
    • Speed: Raised as a concern
    • Communication & Steering: Raised as a concern
    • Strongest on scoped, repository-level work
    • Several tasks at once
    • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Delegated cloud tasks

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex cloud, ChatGPT Pro

87. Positive

    Austin Tedesco, head of growth at Every

    Transcript: 'Why We Switched From Claude Code to Codex'Podcast episode (published transcript), Every (AI & I podcast)

    Says he has fully transitioned from Claude to the Codex app, where he spends about 80% of his work time on growth work and occasional PRs; praises its organization and automations, keeps a final human review and checks KPI columns one by one.

    "When I sign on during the day, Codex is the first thing I open. It’s pulling in whatever I need from Gmail, Slack, Notion, Stripe, all of our data sources. It’s where I spend about 80% of my time working, overwhelmingly because…"

    Published May 6, 2026self-described: Every, growth and knowledge work plus occasional product PRs

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Codex partner: not counted as independent; Used it directly; Observed on GPT-5.5; Specific details

    Role

    Name self-described; employer self-described; role self-described (Head of Growth)

    Relationship

    affiliate (confirmed); sponsor (self disclosed)

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-05-06, GPT-5.5

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: excluded, praise from someone tied to the vendor, kept as an attributed position

    Not counted

    Adoption and upkeep, setup: excluded, praise from someone tied to the vendor, kept as an attributed position

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Developer Experience: Positive
    • Requires Strong Review: Discussed without concern
    • Inconsistent Results: Raised as a concern
    • Written conventions make results consistent
    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Codex as the main tool
    • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app

    Published on

    Podcasts, Talks & Videos

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex desktop app with Gmail, Slack and Notion plugins, Compound Engineering plugin, GPT-5.5

88. Positive

    CompoundEyes, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Claude.ai and API unavailable [fixed]Hacker News comment

    A coworker who had used only Claude Code tried Codex and said it just works, does what they ask and does not disconnect; the author calls Codex CLI ambient and reliable.

    Published Apr 30, 2026self-described: Company with unlimited Anthropic and OpenAI model access

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Observed on gpt-5 family

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-04-30, gpt-5 family

    Not counted

    Reliability, run stability: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, context handling: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Developer Experience: Positive
    • Stability: Positive
    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Codex as the main tool

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

89. Positive

    Owain Lewis, developer

    How I Use OpenAI Codex (Real Workflow)Video, YouTube

    Walks through a daily Codex loop from Linear ticket to pull request on GPT-5.5 high, names the desktop app his favorite way to work across several projects at once, keeps AGENTS.md really minimal, and finds Plus plan limits very generous.

    "Codex is through the desktop app. I think this is a really powerful way to work with AI coding models and coding agents. This, to me, is more powerful than the CLI. I'll show you why in a second. So, you can go ahead and…"

    Published Apr 25, 2026self-described: Solo, their own project tracked in Linear

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Operational control, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Observed on GPT 5.5; Specific details

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, author profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-04-25, GPT 5.5

    Counts toward

    Operational control, models and deployment: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Operational control, execution control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Developer Experience: Positive
    • Usage Limits / Cost: Discussed without concern
    • Written conventions make results consistent
    • Several tasks at once
    • Evaluated as an engineering agent
    • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app

    Published on

    Podcasts, Talks & Videos

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex CLI and Codex desktop app, GPT-5.5 on high reasoning, AGENTS.md, Linear plugin, ChatGPT Plus plan

90. Positive

    Tim Sehn, CEO of DoltHub

    Dueling Agents: Claude and CodexCompany engineering blog post, DoltHub Blog

    Sehn added Codex to review Claude-written DoltLite code and found it kept catching bugs Claude missed, driving three breaking releases. He still uses Claude for new builds and features and Codex for review and fine tuning.

    "Codex is good at review and fine tuning. Claude is better at features and testing frameworks."

    Published Apr 22, 2026Building DoltLite, a SQLite fork in C, with agents in parallel terminals

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Customer of Codex; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on $100/month Codex plan

    Role

    Name self-described; employer self-described; role unknown

    Relationship

    program member (self disclosed); customer (self disclosed)

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-04-22, $100/month Codex plan

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, context handling: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Code Quality: Positive
    • Pull Request Review: Positive
    • Fast Runs: Positive
    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Claude Code as the main tool
    • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex US$100 monthly plan

91. Mixed

    Mahnoor Faisal, tech writer at XDA Developers

    I switched from Claude Code to Codex for a week, and the trade-offs surprised meFirst-person review column, XDA Developers

    After a week on Codex, Faisal found it starts building on assumptions they disagreed with, where Claude Code asks first; Codex limits were more generous, yet Faisal still recommends Claude Code.

    Published Apr 21, 2026self-described: Solo, building tools for their own workflow

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Customer of Codex; Used it directly; Specific details

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    customer (self disclosed); customer (self disclosed)

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-04-21

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Not counted

    Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Value for Money: Positive
    • Usage Limits / Cost: Discussed without concern
    • Requires Strong Review: Raised as a concern
    • Needs Close Steering: Raised as a concern
    • Communication & Steering: Raised as a concern
    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Claude Code as the main tool

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex, free and paid Pro tiers

92. Positive

    Nathan Lambert, ML researcher

    GPT 5.4 is a big step for CodexNewsletter, Interconnects AI (Substack)

    GPT 5.4 in Codex is the first OpenAI agent Lambert stopped churning off: precise instruction following, roomy limits and better context handling, though they still start most days in Claude.

    Published Mar 18, 2026self-described: Solo, smaller projects, data analysis and research tasks

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on GPT 5.4

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-03-18, GPT 5.4

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, context handling: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance, C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, measured outcomes: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    • Overall signal
    • Code Quality: Positive
    • Developer Experience: Positive
    • Value for Money: Positive
    • Usage Limits / Cost: Discussed without concern
    • Inconsistent Results: Raised as a concern
    • Communication & Steering: Discussed without concern
    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Claude Code as the main tool

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Needs a recheck

    Observed on

    Codex with GPT 5.4 (fast mode, high or xhigh effort), Codex app, US$200/month ChatGPT plan

93. Mixed

    cyooi, GitHub user on a Business plan

    Burning tokens very fastGitHub issue on openai/codex

    On a Business plan, reports burning about 20% of their tokens within 2 hours after that day's VS Code extension update, with 1 or 2 prompts using 1%, on GPT5.3 and 5.4 at High reasoning effort.

    "…is it considered normal to consume one fifth of the tokens within 2 hours even for business accounts?"

    Published Mar 13, 2026self-described: Business plan, VS Code extension

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on 26.311.21342

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-03-13, 26.311.21342

    Counts toward

    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    • Usage Limits / Cost: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Needs a recheck

    Observed on

    VS Code extension 26.311.21342, Business, GPT-5.3 and GPT-5.4 on High

94. Negative

    ben_w, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Claude becomes number one app on the U.S. App StoreHacker News comment

    On a Codex-5.3 free trial, much output failed to compile or run, it ignored AGENTS.md guidance on git and skipped tasks; ranks it well below Claude.

    Published Mar 2, 2026self-described: European software engineer, mainly Swift, ObjC and Java

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Observed on Codex-5.3

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-03-02, Codex-5.3

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Reliability, run stability: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    • Overall signal
    • Code Quality: Mixed or negative
    • Inconsistent Results: Raised as a concern
    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Claude Code as the main tool

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Needs a recheck

    Observed on

    Codex free trial, Codex-5.3

95. Positive

    Zachary Proser, Applied AI at WorkOS

    OpenAI Codex Review 2026 - Updated from Daily UsePersonal blog post, zackproser.com

    After nearly a year of daily use Proser queues several Codex tasks each morning for maintenance and pattern-following features, reports far better stability and network controls, but wants model choice.

    Published Mar 2, 2026self-described: Personal projects and apps Proser maintains on the WorkOS Applied AI team

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability, Operational control How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Used it directly; Specific details

    Role

    Name self-described; employer self-described; role self-described (Applied AI engineer)

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-03-02

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Reliability, run stability: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Counts toward

    Operational control, execution control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, context handling: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Operational control, models and deployment: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Codebase Understanding: Positive
    • Strongest on scoped, repository-level work
    • Several tasks at once
    • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Delegated cloud tasks
    • How much should Codex complete before a human checkpoint?: Broader delegation

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex cloud tasks

96. Positive

    Thiago Temple, developer

    Codex App Worktrees: A Practical WorkflowVideo, YouTube

    Uses Codex app worktrees as their daily workflow to run several branches in parallel, test each thread locally, and review before opening a PR.

    "…for now, I'm stopping the server. I can switch to a different thread in here and do the same thing. Just click on the play button, test the changes into that thread, which would be its own work tree. Right? So, because I'm starting each…"

    Published Feb 23, 2026self-described: Solo, their own web app monorepo

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, author profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-02-23

    Counts toward

    Adoption and upkeep, setup: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Developer Experience: Positive
    • Requires Strong Review: Discussed without concern
    • Several tasks at once
    • Faster on self-directed work
    • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app

    Published on

    Podcasts, Talks & Videos

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

    Observed on

    Codex desktop app worktrees, local environment setup scripts, Handoff to Local

97. Positive

    raw_anon_1111, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: How I use Claude Code: Separation of planning and executionHacker News comment

    Uses Codex for almost all of their client infrastructure work. They save their US$800 monthly company Claude allowance for the problems Codex cannot solve, since US$10 of Claude went in under an hour.

    Published Feb 22, 2026self-described: Consultant with a US$800 monthly company Claude allowance

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly

    Role

    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Used it directly

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-02-22

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward

    • Overall signal
    • Usage Limits / Cost: Discussed without concern
    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Codex as the main tool

    Published on

    Developer Communities

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Current

98. Positive

    Pawel Jozefiak, independent builder

    When Coding Tools Compete: Claude Code vs. Codex (Real Usage After 2 Months)Newsletter post, Digital Thoughts (thoughts.jock.pl, Substack)

    Over two weeks on one codebase, GPT-5.3-Codex read the whole repo, fixed callers too and was faster than Claude Code, which still remains their base for autonomous agent runs.

    Published Feb 16, 2026self-described: Solo, auditing their own 2-month-old agent codebase

    Practitioner account, self-described; structured test; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; Ran a structured test; Observed on GPT-5.3-Codex; Specific details

    Role

    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

    Relationship

    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

    How they know

    Ran a structured test

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-02-16, GPT-5.3-Codex

    Counts toward

    Delivered outcomes, context handling: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    • Overall signal
    • Code Quality: Positive
    • Developer Experience: Positive
    • Codebase Understanding: Positive
    • Fast Runs: Positive
    • Speed: Discussed without concern
    • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Claude Code as the main tool

    Published on

    Engineering Blogs & Reviews

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Reported

    Applies to

    Needs a recheck

    Observed on

    Codex app, GPT-5.3-Codex

99. Mixed

    Claire Vo, founder of ChatPRD and host of How I AI

    Claude Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.3 Codex: Which is the better software engineer?Podcast episode, How I AI (YouTube)

    Found Codex too literal for a creative site redesign, then relied on it to review Opus-built code for architecture and edge cases while merging 44 PRs in five days.

    "…kind of doing a huge huge PR. It required like I don't know probably 30 rounds of of feedback on this thing. And GPT 53 codeex was so lovely. love it for code review, architectural review, and finding edge cases. And what I found is…"

    Published Feb 11, 2026self-described: ChatPRD marketing site and core application

    Practitioner account, self-described; structured test; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

    Origin

    Published practitioner account

    Checked

    Self-described; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Ran a structured test; Specific details; Observed on GPT-5.2 Codex; GPT-5.3 Codex

    Role

    Name self-described; employer self-described; role unknown

    Relationship

    No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, author profile); that is not proof none exists

    How they know

    Ran a structured test

    Support

    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

    Date and version

    2026-02-11, GPT-5.2 Codex; GPT-5.3 Codex

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Not counted

    Delivered outcomes, context handling: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    • Overall signal
    • Code Quality: Positive
    • Pull Request Review: Positive
    • Communication & Steering: Raised as a concern

    Published on

    Podcasts, Talks & Videos

    Who

    Individual practitioner

    Evidence

    Measured

    Applies to

    Needs a recheck

    Observed on

    Codex desktop app, GPT-5.2-Codex and GPT-5.3-Codex

100. Positive

     Dan Vega, Java developer

     I Tried OpenAI's New Codex Agent. Here are my First Impressions (It's Really Good)Personal blog post, danvega.dev

     A day with the new Codex macOS app: threads across projects, live diffs and built-in Git actions impressed them and tests passed first run, though Claude Code felt slightly snappier.

     Published Feb 5, 2026self-described: Solo, a Java test project and their personal website

     Practitioner account, self-described; structured test; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Self-described; Ran a structured test; Artifact checked (transcript); Observed on 5.2

     Role

     Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

     Relationship

     Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

     How they know

     Ran a structured test

     Support

     1 artifact (transcript)

     Date and version

     2026-02-05, 5.2

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance, C-relationship

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, correctness: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance, C-relationship

     Counts toward

     Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward

     • Overall signal
     • Code Quality: Positive
     • Developer Experience: Positive
     • Fast Runs: Mixed or negative
     • Speed: Discussed without concern
     • Several tasks at once
     • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app

     Published on

     Engineering Blogs & Reviews

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Current

     Observed on

     Codex app for macOS, GPT-5.2

101. Positive

     Matt Crouch, developer

     Trying out the Codex appPersonal blog post, mattcrouch.net (Matt Crouch's Blog)

     First time using Codex, via the macOS app: it quickly fixed long-postponed blog features and Crouch loved the diff review, but worries parallel agents make code harder to understand.

     Published Feb 4, 2026self-described: Their personal blog codebase and a work front end monorepo

     Practitioner account; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Operational control How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Used it directly; Observed on Codex app for macOS

     Role

     Name unknown; employer unknown; role unknown

     Relationship

     Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

     How they know

     Used it directly

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2026-02-04, Codex app for macOS

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, correctness: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, context handling: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control

     Counts toward

     Operational control, execution control: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control

     Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward

     • Overall signal
     • Code Quality: Positive
     • Developer Experience: Positive
     • Fast Runs: Positive
     • Requires Strong Review: Raised as a concern
     • Faster on self-directed work
     • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app

     Published on

     Engineering Blogs & Reviews

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Current

     Observed on

     Codex app for macOS

102. Mixed

     khoek, Codex CLI user on the Pro plan

     Quality of GPT-5.2 xhigh's work has massively degraded and appears to just route to GPT-5.2 CodexGitHub issue

     Reports that GPT-5.2 xhigh in Codex CLI degraded sharply, meeting instructions literally while missing the point, and suspects requests were routed to GPT-5.2 Codex.

     Published Feb 3, 2026self-described: GitHub issue on openai/codex, Pro plan

     Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Observed on codex-cli 0.94.0; Specific details

     Role

     Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

     Relationship

     No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

     How they know

     Used it directly

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2026-02-03, codex-cli 0.94.0

     Counts toward

     Reliability, service availability: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds)

     Not counted

     Operational control, models and deployment: a lead (G0), counts toward nothing until substantiated

     Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward, pending a recheck

     • Overall signal
     • Code Quality: Mixed or negative
     • Requires Strong Review: Raised as a concern
     • Inconsistent Results: Raised as a concern
     • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app

     Published on

     Developer Communities

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Needs a recheck

     Observed on

     Codex CLI 0.94.0, Pro, GPT-5.2 and GPT-5.2 Codex (xhigh)

103. Positive

     Uehreka, Hacker News commenter

     Comment on: Qwen3-Coder-NextHacker News comment

     Using both, rates gpt-5.2-codex strictly above Opus 4.5: switching to Codex at work ended corner cutting and early stopping, though Codex CLI still lacks hooks.

     Published Feb 3, 2026self-described: Work (ChatGPT Enterprise) plus a personal Claude Max subscription

     Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Observed on gpt-5.2-codex

     Role

     Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

     Relationship

     No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

     How they know

     Used it directly

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2026-02-03, gpt-5.2-codex

     Not counted

     Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward, pending a recheck

     • Overall signal
     • Code Quality: Positive
     • Developer Experience: Mixed or negative
     • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Codex as the main tool
     • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app

     Published on

     Developer Communities

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Needs a recheck

     Observed on

     Codex CLI, ChatGPT Enterprise, gpt-5.2-codex

104. Mixed

     Adrian Holt, CTO at FloodWaive (GitHub profile)

     Subagent feature: Launching concurrent subagents instantly drains entire Pro plan usage quotaGitHub issue on openai/codex

     Launching about six concurrent subagents for parallel codebase exploration drained the full Pro five-hour quota at once, which he says makes subagents unusable for Pro subscribers.

     "This makes the subagent feature effectively unusable for Pro subscribers, as a single concurrent subagent operation exhausts the entire weekly quota."

     Published Jan 23, 2026self-described: Pro plan, VS Code on Ubuntu

     Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Pseudonymous; Customer of Codex; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on 0.89.0

     Role

     Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

     Relationship

     customer (self disclosed)

     How they know

     Used it directly

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2026-01-23, 0.89.0

     Counts toward

     Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

     Not counted

     Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward, pending a recheck

     • Usage Limits / Cost: Raised as a concern

     Published on

     Developer Communities

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Needs a recheck

     Observed on

     Codex 0.89.0, Pro, gpt-5.2-xhigh

105. No opinion stated

     Ramtin Ehsani and co-authors, software engineering researchers

     Where Do AI Coding Agents Fail? An Empirical Study of Failed Agentic Pull Requests in GitHubIndependent study, arXiv

     Finds that of 33,596 agent pull requests on GitHub, Codex opened the most (21,799) and had the highest merge rate at 82.59%, against 65.22% for Cursor, 59.04% for Claude Code, 53.76% for Devin and 43.04% for Copilot.

     "Despite handling the largest volume of contributions, OpenAI Codex achieves the highest merge rate, with 82.59% (18,004) of its PRs being accepted."

     Published Jan 21, 2026self-described: 33,596 agent pull requests in public GitHub repositories

     Practitioner account; structured test; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Ran a structured test; Artifact checked (dataset)

     Role

     Name unknown; employer unknown; role unknown

     Relationship

     Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

     How they know

     Ran a structured test

     Support

     1 artifact (dataset)

     Date and version

     2026-01-21

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, measured outcomes: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control

     Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward

     • Evaluated as an engineering agent

     Published on

     Engineering Blogs & Reviews

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Measured

     Applies to

     Still applicable

106. Positive

     Zevi Arnovitz, product manager, Meta

     Lenny's Podcast: The non-technical PM's guide to building with CursorPodcast episode with publisher transcript

     A Meta product manager has Codex, Claude Code and Cursor each review the same code for his own projects, then reconciles their findings.

     "But what's even cooler and something that I'm really proud of is I will usually do multiple reviews and I'll have Codex, which is ChatGPT's competitor to Claude Code, as well as cursor open, and I will have each of them review the code."

     Published Jan 18, 2026self-described: His own projects

     Counts toward

     • Overall signal
     • Pull Request Review: Positive

     Published on

     Podcasts, Talks & Videos

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Current

107. No opinion stated

     Terminal-Bench authors

     Terminal-Bench: Benchmarking Agents on Hard, Realistic Tasks in Command Line InterfacesIndependent benchmark, arXiv (Terminal-Bench)

     Finds Codex CLI with GPT-5.2 achieved the highest average resolution rate on Terminal-Bench 2.0, 63%, followed by Terminus 2 with Claude Opus 4.5 at 58% and Terminus 2 with Gemini 3 Pro at 57%.

     "Codex CLI paired with GPT-5.2 achieves the highest average resolution rate of 63%, followed by Terminus 2 with Claude Opus 4.5 and Terminus 2 with Gemini 3 Pro at 58% and 57%, respectively."

     Published Jan 17, 2026self-described: Benchmark of hard command-line tasks, agents run by the benchmark team

     Practitioner account; opinion; not counted, takes no position How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Competitor staff: not counted as independent; Opinion

     Role

     Name unknown; employer unknown; role unknown

     Relationship

     competitor employee (self disclosed); competitor employee (self disclosed); competitor employee (self disclosed)

     How they know

     Opinion, no use stated

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2026-01-17

     Not counted

     no aspect: excluded, takes no position on any assessed aspect

     Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward, pending a recheck

     • Long-Running Autonomy: Positive

     Published on

     Engineering Blogs & Reviews

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Measured

     Applies to

     Needs a recheck

     Observed on

     Codex CLI with GPT-5.2

108. No opinion stated

     orwin, Hacker News commenter

     Comment on: The 70% AI productivity myth: why most companies aren't seeing the gainsHacker News comment

     With the previous generation of models, Codex 5.1 among them, their team's overall velocity fell. Too much code was generated for the seniors to review carefully, production bugs rose, and fixed bugs came back in later pull requests.

     Published Dec 30, 2025self-described: Senior engineer on a team using Sonnet 4.5 and Codex 5.1

     Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Observed on Codex 5.1

     Role

     Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

     Relationship

     No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

     How they know

     Used it directly

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2025-12-30, Codex 5.1

     Not counted

     Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Not counted

     Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward

     • Requires Strong Review: Raised as a concern

     Published on

     Developer Communities

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Current

109. Mixed

     Armin Ronacher, developer

     A Year Of VibesPersonal blog post, lucumr.pocoo.org (Armin Ronacher's Thoughts and Writings)

     Uses Codex more but still prefers Claude, with nothing beyond vibes behind it; Codex's GitHub code review stopped working for him because it binds to one organization at a time, so he reviews with the Codex CLI, out of his teammates' view.

     Published Dec 22, 2025self-described: Their own coding at a new company, reviewed with agents locally

     Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Operational control How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Self-described; Used it directly; Specific details

     Role

     Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

     Relationship

     Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

     How they know

     Used it directly

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2025-12-22

     Counts toward

     Operational control, admin control: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward

     • Overall signal
     • Developer Experience: Mixed or negative
     • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Claude Code as the main tool
     • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app

     Published on

     Engineering Blogs & Reviews

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Still applicable

     Observed on

     Codex CLI, Codex code review on GitHub

110. Positive

     Joe Fabisevich, indie developer and Plinky creator

     Codex vs. Claude Code (Today)Personal blog post, build.ms

     Fabisevich mostly settled on Codex for coding because its long tasks produce results he does not need to steer, while he keeps Claude Code for quick utility and design work.

     Published Dec 22, 2025self-described: Solo client and personal projects; Codex for coding and Claude Code for utility tasks

     Practitioner account; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Used it directly; Observed on codex-5.2-high

     Role

     Name unknown; employer unknown; role unknown

     Relationship

     Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

     How they know

     Used it directly

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2025-12-22, codex-5.2-high

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, correctness: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control

     Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward, pending a recheck

     • Overall signal
     • Needs Close Steering: Discussed without concern
     • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Codex as the main tool
     • How much should Codex complete before a human checkpoint?: Broader delegation

     Published on

     Engineering Blogs & Reviews

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Needs a recheck

     Observed on

     Codex and Claude Code, GPT-5.2-high and Opus 4.5

111. Positive

     Simon Willison, independent developer

     I ported JustHTML from Python to JavaScript with Codex CLI and GPT-5.2 in 4.5 hoursPersonal blog post, simonwillison.net

     Ported a Python HTML5 parser to JavaScript with Codex CLI and GPT-5.2 in about four mostly unattended hours, producing 9,000 lines passing html5lib tests, within their Plus plan.

     Published Dec 15, 2025self-described: Solo side experiment: porting an open source HTML5 parser

     Practitioner account, self-described; structured test; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability, Operational control, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Self-described; Customer of Codex; Ran a structured test; Artifact checked (transcript); Observed on GPT-5.2

     Role

     Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

     Relationship

     customer (self disclosed)

     How they know

     Ran a structured test

     Support

     2 artifacts (transcript, benchmark output)

     Date and version

     2025-12-15, GPT-5.2

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, correctness: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Counts toward

     Reliability, run stability: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Counts toward

     Operational control, execution control: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Counts toward

     Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Not counted

     Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward

     • Overall signal
     • Long-Running Autonomy: Positive
     • Value for Money: Positive
     • Usage Limits / Cost: Discussed without concern
     • Strongest on scoped, repository-level work
     • Faster on self-directed work
     • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app
     • How much should Codex complete before a human checkpoint?: Broader delegation

     Published on

     Engineering Blogs & Reviews

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Measured

     Applies to

     Still applicable

     Observed on

     Codex CLI, GPT-5.2, ChatGPT Plus (US$20/month)

112. Positive

     Carl Vellotti, creator of AI tutorials for product managers

     The Ultimate Guide to ChatGPT Codex: OpenAI's Claude Code KillerPodcast episode (show notes), Product Growth (Aakash Gupta)

     Shows PMs using Codex CLI, flags constant permission prompts and slower web search than Claude Code, and reports a test-first feature built unattended in 35 minutes.

     Published Dec 8, 2025self-described: A PM workspace built for the episode and a personal side project

     Practitioner account, self-described; second-hand; not counted until substantiated How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Self-described; Second-hand; Specific details; Observed on GPT-5 Codex

     Role

     Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

     Relationship

     Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

     How they know

     Reports others' experience

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2025-12-08, GPT-5 Codex

     Not counted

     Adoption and upkeep, setup: a lead (G0), counts toward nothing until substantiated

     Not counted

     Operational control, models and deployment: a lead (G0), counts toward nothing until substantiated

     Not counted

     Operational control, execution control: a lead (G0), counts toward nothing until substantiated

     Not counted

     Delivered outcomes, context handling: a lead (G0), counts toward nothing until substantiated

     Not counted

     Delivered outcomes, task completion: a lead (G0), counts toward nothing until substantiated

     Not counted

     Delivered outcomes, correctness: a lead (G0), counts toward nothing until substantiated

     Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward, pending a recheck

     • Long-Running Autonomy: Positive
     • Speed: Raised as a concern
     • Strongest on scoped, repository-level work
     • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app

     Published on

     Podcasts, Talks & Videos

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Measured

     Applies to

     Needs a recheck

     Observed on

     Codex CLI in a Cursor terminal, --yolo mode, GPT-5-Codex

113. Mixed

     Brian John, principal full-stack engineer, AI enablement for R&D, BetterUp

     AI Engineer: Hacking Subagents Into Codex CLIConference talk video

     BetterUp's AI enablement lead added the Codex CLI beside Claude Code to avoid lock-in and finds Codex slower and serial, built for hands-off unattended work; its sandbox resisted his sub-agent workaround.

     "Codeex does not have the ability to run things asynchronously like claw does. So, this is slower. And Codeex in general, if you've used it, I think you find it's slower overall than than Cloud Code. But I think that's really kind of intentional. seems like Codex is really kind of meant to be more of like a hands-off unattended type of a tool versus clog code is meant to be more kind of iterative…"

     Published Nov 24, 2025self-described: BetterUp R&D AI enablement

     Counts toward

     • Overall signal
     • Long-Running Autonomy: Positive
     • Speed: Raised as a concern
     • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Claude Code as the main tool

     Published on

     Podcasts, Talks & Videos

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Current

114. Mixed

     Jaiden333, startup founder and engineer

     Comment on: Building more with GPT-5.1-Codex-MaxHacker News comment

     Uses Codex only on narrowly scoped tasks with close supervision, where its code beats other models, but must fight its dense prose and test-preserving habits.

     Published Nov 20, 2025self-described: Startup, own feature work

     Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly

     Role

     Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

     Relationship

     No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

     How they know

     Used it directly

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2025-11-20

     Not counted

     Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Not counted

     Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward

     • Overall signal
     • Code Quality: Positive
     • Needs Close Steering: Raised as a concern
     • Speed: Raised as a concern
     • Communication & Steering: Raised as a concern
     • Strongest on scoped, repository-level work
     • Several tasks at once
     • How much should Codex complete before a human checkpoint?: Tighter steering

     Published on

     Developer Communities

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Still applicable

115. Mixed

     johnfn, Hacker News commenter, self-described

     Comment on: Building more with GPT-5.1-Codex-MaxHacker News comment

     Codex follows written instructions with dogged literalness: too slow for quick web tweaks, but better than Claude for long, hard tasks that must be correct.

     Published Nov 19, 2025

     Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details

     Role

     Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

     Relationship

     No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

     How they know

     Used it directly

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2025-11-19

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds)

     Not counted

     Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward

     • Overall signal
     • Long-Running Autonomy: Positive
     • Fast Runs: Mixed or negative
     • Needs Close Steering: Discussed without concern
     • Speed: Raised as a concern
     • Communication & Steering: Raised as a concern
     • Written conventions make results consistent
     • Strongest on scoped, repository-level work

     Published on

     Developer Communities

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Still applicable

116. Negative

     Max Zhadobin, OpenAI Developer Community user

     Pro plan: hit 5-hour limit twice (in 2h and 1.5h) and nearly exhausted weekly cap in 1 day after today's updateForum post

     After Codex usage limits arrived at the end of October 2025, hit the Pro 5-hour limit twice in one day and nearly the weekly cap, with hung runs still using limits.

     Published Nov 2, 2025self-described: OpenAI Developer Community post, Pro plan

     Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Reliability, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Pseudonymous; Customer of Codex; Used it directly; Observed on Pro; Specific details

     Role

     Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

     Relationship

     customer (self disclosed)

     How they know

     Used it directly

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2025-11-02, Pro

     Counts toward

     Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance, C-relationship

     Counts toward

     Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance, C-relationship

     Counts toward

     Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance, C-relationship

     Counts toward

     Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance, C-relationship

     Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward, pending a recheck

     • Overall signal
     • Value for Money: Mixed or negative
     • Usage Limits / Cost: Raised as a concern
     • Inconsistent Results: Raised as a concern

     Published on

     Developer Communities

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Needs a recheck

     Observed on

     Codex, ChatGPT Pro (upgraded from Plus)

117. Mixed

     wahnfrieden, Hacker News commenter

     Comment on: I've been loving Claude Code on the webHacker News comment

     Their team uses Codex because it has the best model, though the client is still early: it reads less of the codebase than GPT-5 Pro and skips context it is given.

     Published Oct 28, 2025self-described: Team that uses Codex as its main coding agent

     Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months

     Role

     Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

     Relationship

     No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

     How they know

     Used it directly

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2025-10-28, needs a recheck

     Not counted

     Delivered outcomes, context handling: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward

     • Overall signal
     • Codebase Understanding: Mixed or negative

     Published on

     Developer Communities

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Current

118. Mixed

     extr, Hacker News commenter

     Comment on: Claude Code vs. Codex: I built a sentiment dashboard from Reddit commentsHacker News comment

     Uses Claude Code about 80% of the time and Codex 20%. Codex on medium is better at executing a well-written plan, finding a bug or reasoning over long context, with more generous usage limits, while Claude suits pairing and architecture work.

     Published Oct 17, 2025self-described: Enterprise developer who uses Claude Code and Codex

     Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months

     Role

     Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

     Relationship

     No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

     How they know

     Used it directly

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2025-10-17, Codex-medium, needs a recheck

     Not counted

     Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Not counted

     Delivered outcomes, context handling: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Not counted

     Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward

     • Overall signal
     • Codebase Understanding: Positive
     • Strongest on scoped, repository-level work
     • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Claude Code as the main tool

     Published on

     Developer Communities

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Current

119. Mixed

     Wayne Joubert, guest author on John D. Cook's blog

     Experiences with GPT-5-CodexBlog post (guest author), johndcook.com (John D. Cook's blog)

     Codex sped up a complex refactor roughly tenfold by their estimate but missed many cases on a type-hint sweep; Joubert works hands-on, plans changes first and reviews every line.

     Published Oct 16, 2025self-described: Their own Python code, Codex extension inside Cursor

     Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Operational control How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Self-described; Customer of Codex; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months

     Role

     Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

     Relationship

     customer (self disclosed)

     How they know

     Used it directly

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2025-10-16, needs a recheck

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Counts toward

     Operational control, execution control: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward, pending a recheck

     • Overall signal
     • Requires Strong Review: Raised as a concern
     • Inconsistent Results: Raised as a concern
     • Communication & Steering: Raised as a concern
     • Strongest on scoped, repository-level work
     • Faster on self-directed work
     • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app
     • How much should Codex complete before a human checkpoint?: Tighter steering

     Published on

     Engineering Blogs & Reviews

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Needs a recheck

     Observed on

     Codex IDE extension in Cursor, GPT-5-Codex

120. Positive

     Peter Steinberger, independent developer

     Just Talk To It - the no-bs Way of Agentic EngineeringPersonal blog post, steipete.me

     Moved completely to Codex CLI as his daily driver, running 3 to 8 sessions in parallel; prefers it to Claude Code because it reads more files before starting, runs fast and its language bothers him less, but calls missing background task management its most painful omission.

     Published Oct 14, 2025self-described: Solo, own projects; several Codex CLI sessions in one folder

     Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability, Operational control, Cost predictability and limits, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Self-described; Customer of Codex; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

     Role

     Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

     Relationship

     customer (self disclosed); customer (self disclosed)

     How they know

     Used it directly

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2025-10-14, gpt-5-codex, needs a recheck

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, context handling: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, correctness: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Counts toward

     Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Counts toward

     Operational control, models and deployment: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Counts toward

     Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Counts toward

     Adoption and upkeep, setup: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Not counted

     Operational control, execution control: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward, pending a recheck

     • Overall signal
     • Developer Experience: Positive
     • Codebase Understanding: Positive
     • Fast Runs: Positive
     • Written conventions make results consistent
     • Several tasks at once
     • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Codex as the main tool
     • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app

     Published on

     Engineering Blogs & Reviews

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Needs a recheck

     Observed on

     Codex CLI, gpt-5-codex (mid settings), Codex web

121. Negative

     rossant, Hacker News commenter

     Comment on: Two things LLM coding agents are still bad atHacker News comment

     A Codex CLI refactor of HTML files rewrote content from memory, dropped comments and silently hallucinated most of 40 link URLs, caught only just before deployment.

     Published Oct 9, 2025self-described: Neuroscience researcher and engineer at the International Brain Laboratory and UCL

     Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

     Role

     Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

     Relationship

     No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

     How they know

     Used it directly

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2025-10-09, needs a recheck

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

     Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward

     • Overall signal
     • Code Quality: Mixed or negative
     • Requires Strong Review: Raised as a concern
     • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app

     Published on

     Developer Communities

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Still applicable

     Observed on

     Codex CLI

122. Positive

     Chris Ellis, engineering team lead at XtendOps

     Dual Wielding Codex and Claude CodeNewsletter post, Engineered Intelligence (Substack)

     Ellis uses Codex while exploring a problem with many side effects and switches to Claude Code once he knows what needs to happen. Shared vision, implementation and worklog files keep both agents aligned.

     "When I’m still figuring things out, exploring the problem space or handling changes with many side effects, I’m using Codex."

     Published Oct 8, 2025self-described: Pivot of a multi-tenant product to single tenant under deadline, working inside Cursor

     Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Self-described; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months

     Role

     Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

     Relationship

     Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

     How they know

     Used it directly

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2025-10-08, needs a recheck

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, context handling: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward

     • Overall signal
     • Codebase Understanding: Positive
     • Written conventions make results consistent
     • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app

     Published on

     Engineering Blogs & Reviews

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Still applicable

123. Positive

     Simon Willison, independent developer

     Embracing the parallel coding agent lifestylePersonal blog post, simonwillison.net

     Willison's daily drivers are Claude Code, Codex CLI on GPT-5-Codex and Codex Cloud for asynchronous tasks he often launches from his phone, with several agents running at once.

     "My daily drivers are currently Claude Code (on Sonnet 4.5), Codex CLI (on GPT-5-Codex), and Codex Cloud (for asynchronous tasks, frequently launched from my phone.)…"

     Published Oct 5, 2025self-described: Solo open source work, several agents in separate checkouts

     Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Self-described; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months

     Role

     Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

     Relationship

     Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

     How they know

     Used it directly

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2025-10-05, Codex CLI (on GPT-5-Codex), needs a recheck

     Not counted

     Operational control, execution control: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward

     • Overall signal
     • Several tasks at once
     • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Delegated cloud tasks

     Published on

     Engineering Blogs & Reviews

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Still applicable

     Observed on

     Codex CLI on GPT-5-Codex and Codex Cloud

124. Mixed

     Matt Wigdahl, independent software developer

     Claude Code vs Codex CLI: Head to HeadSubstack post, The Anything Interface

     Using the same specification and prompt templates, Wigdahl found Claude Code closest to a correct first implementation and best at the requested animation. Codex's animation worked for repositioning but did not handle size changes. He calls it a qualitative single-stack test.

     Published Oct 3, 2025self-described: Solo, controlled side-by-side rebuild of the same React and TypeScript specification

     Practitioner account, self-described; structured test; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability, Operational control, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Self-described; Ran a structured test; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

     Role

     Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

     Relationship

     Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

     How they know

     Ran a structured test

     Support

     1 artifact (repository)

     Date and version

     2025-10-03, GPT-5-high and GPT-5-Codex-high, needs a recheck

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Counts toward

     Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Counts toward

     Operational control, execution control: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Counts toward

     Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward, pending a recheck

     • Overall signal
     • Speed: Discussed without concern
     • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Claude Code as the main tool
     • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app

     Published on

     Engineering Blogs & Reviews

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Measured

     Applies to

     Needs a recheck

     Observed on

     Codex with GPT-5-Codex-high and Claude Code 2 with Sonnet 4.5

125. Positive

     dudeinhawaii, Hacker News commenter

     Comment on: Unix philosophy and filesystem access makes Claude Code amazingHacker News comment

     Finds GPT-5-Codex in Codex CLI slower than Claude but better on large codebases: smarter code and refactors that respect existing patterns and add less chaos.

     Published Oct 1, 2025self-described: Large codebases with dozens of interconnected tools and projects

     Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months

     Role

     Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

     Relationship

     No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

     How they know

     Used it directly

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2025-10-01, GPT-5-Codex, needs a recheck

     Counts toward

     Adoption and upkeep, setup: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds)

     Not counted

     Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Not counted

     Delivered outcomes, context handling: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Not counted

     Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward, pending a recheck

     • Overall signal
     • Code Quality: Positive
     • Codebase Understanding: Positive
     • Fast Runs: Mixed or negative
     • Speed: Discussed without concern
     • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Codex as the main tool
     • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app

     Published on

     Developer Communities

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Needs a recheck

     Observed on

     Codex CLI, GPT-5-Codex

126. Positive

     iagooar, Hacker News commenter

     Comment on: Claude Sonnet 4.5Hacker News comment

     Gave one feature prompt to Claude Code and Codex CLI on a 200k LoC app; Codex took about 20 minutes versus 3, but its code worked and included tests.

     Published Sep 29, 2025self-described: Own web application of about 200k lines of code

     Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months; Specific details

     Role

     Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

     Relationship

     No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

     How they know

     Used it directly

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2025-09-29, GPT-5-Codex (Codex CLI), needs a recheck

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

     Not counted

     Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Not counted

     Delivered outcomes, context handling: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward, pending a recheck

     • Overall signal
     • Code Quality: Positive
     • Fast Runs: Mixed or negative
     • Speed: Discussed without concern
     • Written conventions make results consistent
     • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Codex as the main tool
     • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app

     Published on

     Developer Communities

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Measured

     Applies to

     Needs a recheck

     Observed on

     Codex CLI, GPT-5-Codex

127. Positive

     tom-takeru, full-stack engineer

     How I Used Codex to Ship Nearly 80 Pull Requests in Two Daysdev.to post, DEV Community

     Using Codex Web for parallel tasks and Codex CLI for precise edits on ChatGPT Plus, the author opened nearly 80 PRs in two days, while working around CLI quota limits.

     Published Sep 27, 2025self-described: Solo, personal subscription-style product repository

     Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Operational control, Cost predictability and limits, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Self-described; Customer of Codex; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

     Role

     Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

     Relationship

     customer (self disclosed)

     How they know

     Used it directly

     Support

     3 artifacts (log, repository)

     Date and version

     2025-09-27, v0.42.0, needs a recheck

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

     Counts toward

     Operational control, execution control: favorable, G3 (3 units before bounds)

     Counts toward

     Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: unfavorable, G3 (3 units before bounds)

     Counts toward

     Adoption and upkeep, continuity: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

     Not counted

     Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward, pending a recheck

     • Overall signal
     • Usage Limits / Cost: Raised as a concern
     • Strongest on scoped, repository-level work
     • Several tasks at once
     • Evaluated as an engineering agent
     • Faster on self-directed work
     • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Delegated cloud tasks

     Published on

     Engineering Blogs & Reviews

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Measured

     Applies to

     Needs a recheck

     Observed on

     Codex Web, Codex CLI, ChatGPT Plus

128. Mixed

     Raveesh, independent builder

     Claude Code vs Codex CLINewsletter post, raveesh.substack.com (Substack)

     Prefers Claude Code for feature work because Codex CLI rarely reached near-complete implementations even with plan files, but rates Codex higher for debugging root causes and code review.

     Published Sep 22, 2025self-described: Solo, a fairly mature personal project

     Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Self-described; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months

     Role

     Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

     Relationship

     Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

     How they know

     Used it directly

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2025-09-22, GPT-5, needs a recheck

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, task completion: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, context handling: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward, pending a recheck

     • Overall signal
     • Long-Running Autonomy: Mixed or negative
     • Pull Request Review: Positive
     • Codebase Understanding: Positive
     • Communication & Steering: Discussed without concern
     • Among practitioners who use both, is Codex or Claude Code the better main tool?: Claude Code as the main tool
     • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app

     Published on

     Engineering Blogs & Reviews

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Needs a recheck

     Observed on

     Codex CLI with GPT-5, Codex code review on GitHub

129. Mixed

     GosuCoder, independent developer

     GPT 5 - Codex is a fantastic AI model for coding, but...Video, YouTube

     Timed GPT-5-Codex medium at 7 minutes 38 seconds against 2 minutes 24 seconds for GPT-5 medium, roughly three times slower; its refactor of a monolithic file worked where Claude Code's broke, and recommends Codex low until speed improves.

     "…recommendation. I would not be spending your time right now until they figure out the speed thing with medium and high. I do not think the quality difference is there. uh at the cost of three times the speed. Anyway, I would love to know…"

     Published Sep 19, 2025self-described: Their own codebase plus side-by-side test prompts

     Practitioner account, self-described; structured test; counts toward Reliability How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Self-described; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Ran a structured test; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

     Role

     Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

     Relationship

     No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, author profile); that is not proof none exists

     How they know

     Ran a structured test

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2025-09-19, GPT5 codeex, needs a recheck

     Counts toward

     Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

     Not counted

     Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Not counted

     Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Not counted

     Delivered outcomes, context handling: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Not counted

     Delivered outcomes, measured outcomes: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward, pending a recheck

     • Overall signal
     • Code Quality: Positive
     • Developer Experience: Mixed or negative
     • Usage Limits / Cost: Discussed without concern
     • Speed: Raised as a concern
     • Inconsistent Results: Raised as a concern

     Published on

     Podcasts, Talks & Videos

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Measured

     Applies to

     Needs a recheck

     Observed on

     Codex CLI on Windows, GPT-5-Codex low, medium and high

130. Positive

     ianpurton, Hacker News commenter, self-described

     Comment on: Ask HN: How much of OpenAI code is written by AI?Hacker News comment

     Runs Codex tasks from the web app in the background, reviews and tests the code later, and says about 90% of their pull requests are now AI generated.

     Published Jul 14, 2025

     Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

     Role

     Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

     Relationship

     No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

     How they know

     Used it directly

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2025-07-14, needs a recheck

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

     Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward

     • Overall signal
     • Requires Strong Review: Discussed without concern
     • Several tasks at once
     • Evaluated as an engineering agent
     • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Delegated cloud tasks
     • How much should Codex complete before a human checkpoint?: Broader delegation

     Published on

     Developer Communities

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Still applicable

     Observed on

     Codex web app

131. Positive

     dgunay, Hacker News commenter

     Comment on: Building a Personal AI FactoryHacker News comment

     At work they only have an OpenAI key, so they run several Codex CLI instances from scripts. Each script clones the repository and starts an agent in its own tmux session, and they get notified when one needs them.

     Published Jul 2, 2025self-described: Finance company, Go codebase of several hundred thousand lines serving six-figure B2C users

     Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months

     Role

     Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

     Relationship

     No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

     How they know

     Used it directly

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2025-07-02, needs a recheck

     Not counted

     Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward

     • Overall signal
     • Several tasks at once
     • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Local CLI, IDE, or app

     Published on

     Developer Communities

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Current

132. Mixed

     0x457, Hacker News commenter, self-described

     Comment on: Building Effective AI AgentsHacker News comment

     Splitting a detailed refactoring plan into concurrent Codex web tasks lost much of the context; it worked better as sequential tasks, each with a detailed prompt.

     Published Jun 17, 2025

     Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months

     Role

     Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

     Relationship

     No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

     How they know

     Used it directly

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2025-06-17, needs a recheck

     Not counted

     Delivered outcomes, context handling: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward, pending a recheck

     • Overall signal
     • Long-Running Autonomy: Mixed or negative
     • Strongest on scoped, repository-level work
     • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Delegated cloud tasks
     • How much should Codex complete before a human checkpoint?: Tighter steering

     Published on

     Developer Communities

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Needs a recheck

     Observed on

     Codex web

133. Negative

     rmonvfer, Hacker News commenter

     Comment on: OpenAI Codex hands-on reviewHacker News comment

     Upgraded from Plus to Pro just to test Codex and found it underwhelming: waiting for an undefined amount of time for results, a required environment that, as far as they know, cannot spin up test containers, and no internet access. Expects to downgrade to Plus.

     Published May 20, 2025self-described: Software engineer in Spain building Agentmode

     Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Operational control, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months

     Role

     Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

     Relationship

     No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

     How they know

     Used it directly

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2025-05-20, Pro, needs a recheck

     Counts toward

     Adoption and upkeep, setup: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds)

     Counts toward

     Operational control, execution control: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds)

     Not counted

     Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward, pending a recheck

     • Overall signal
     • Developer Experience: Mixed or negative
     • Speed: Raised as a concern

     Published on

     Developer Communities

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Needs a recheck

     Observed on

     Codex (cloud), ChatGPT Pro

134. Positive

     Antoine Finkelstein, co-founder of Hunter

     OpenAI's Codex: A review after a dozen AI generated PRsPersonal blog post, antoine.fi

     Finkelstein merged about a dozen Codex cloud pull requests into his application over a weekend and calls the environment the biggest limitation. It is a Docker container he cannot configure, with no internet after setup and no way to run Docker images.

     "Codex runs your code in a Docker container that you can't configure, has no access to the internet after the setup stage, and can't run Docker images itself."

     Published May 19, 2025self-described: Own production application

     Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Operational control, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Self-described; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months; Specific details

     Role

     Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown

     Relationship

     Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

     How they know

     Used it directly

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2025-05-19, codex-1, needs a recheck

     Counts toward

     Adoption and upkeep, setup: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Counts toward

     Operational control, execution control: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Not counted

     Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward, pending a recheck

     • Overall signal
     • Code Quality: Positive
     • Developer Experience: Mixed or negative
     • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Delegated cloud tasks

     Published on

     Engineering Blogs & Reviews

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Needs a recheck

     Observed on

     Codex cloud with codex-1 at its May 2025 launch

135. Mixed

     Zachary Proser, Applied AI at WorkOS

     OpenAI Codex Review: Is It Worth It in 2025?Personal blog post, zackproser.com

     In the first days of Codex cloud, Codex handled small parallel maintenance chores well, but larger refactors were awkward, no internet blocked dependency work, and many results needed changes.

     Published May 18, 2025self-described: Own repositories, first days of the Codex cloud at its May 2025 launch

     Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability, Operational control, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Self-described; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months; Specific details

     Role

     Name self-described; employer self-described; role self-described (Applied AI engineer)

     Relationship

     Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open

     How they know

     Used it directly

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2025-05-18, needs a recheck

     Counts toward

     Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Counts toward

     Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Counts toward

     Operational control, execution control: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Counts toward

     Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

     Not counted

     Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Counts toward, pending a recheck

     • Overall signal
     • Developer Experience: Mixed or negative
     • Inconsistent Results: Raised as a concern
     • Strongest on scoped, repository-level work
     • Several tasks at once
     • Should Codex work run on the engineer's machine or as delegated cloud tasks?: Delegated cloud tasks

     Published on

     Engineering Blogs & Reviews

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Needs a recheck

     Observed on

     Codex cloud at its May 2025 launch, ChatGPT Pro

136. Mixed

     uyzeqzer, Hacker News commenter

     Comment on: Show HN: Memex is a Claude Code alternative built on Rust+Tauri for vibe codingHacker News comment

     Says their company uses LiteLLM, so a tool that requires its own keys is out; Codex works with LiteLLM assuming you disable the responses, and Claude Code's big plus is Bedrock support.

     Published Apr 29, 2025self-described: Company that routes model access through LiteLLM

     Practitioner account, pseudonymous; opinion; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it

     Origin

     Published practitioner account

     Checked

     Pseudonymous; No tie to Codex found in GILD's check; Opinion; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months

     Role

     Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued

     Relationship

     No tie to Codex found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists

     How they know

     Opinion, no use stated

     Support

     No artifact or independent corroboration recorded

     Date and version

     2025-04-29, needs a recheck

     Not counted

     Operational control, models and deployment: repeats a stronger account in its group

     Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

     Published on

     Developer Communities

     Who

     Individual practitioner

     Evidence

     Reported

     Applies to

     Needs a recheck