IMO codex produces working code slowly, while Opus produces superficially working code quickly. I like using Opus to drive codex sessions and checking its output. Clawdbot is really good at that but a long running Claude Code session with codex as sub agents should work well also.

The above is for vibe coding; for taking the wheel, I can only use Opus because I suck at prompting codex (it needs very specific instructions), and codex is also way too slow for pair programming.

▲

NitpickLawyer 3 days ago | parent [-]

> I like using Opus to drive codex sessions and checking its output.

Why not the other way around? Have the quick brown fox churn out code, and have codex review it, guide changes, and loop?

I've actually gone one step further down the delegation. I use opus/gemini3 for plan, review, edit plan for a few steps. Then write it out to .md files. Then have GLM implement it (I got a cheap plan for like 28$ for a year on Christmas). Then have the code this produced reviewed and fixed if needed by opus. Final review by codex (for some reason it's very good at review, esp if you have solid checkboxes for it to check during review). Seems to work so far.

	▲	manmal 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I agree, codex is great at reviewing as well. I think that’s because code is the ideal description of what we want to achieve, and codex is good (only) when it knows what must be achieved, as verbosely as possible. Currently I don’t let GLM or Opus near my codebases unsupervised because I’m convinced that the better the foundation, the better the end result will be. Is the first draft not pretty crappy with GLM?