I feel like I get a lot of what this article presents as "hidden" by using this process:

- "Read `description` and create a specification, implementation guide, and checklist." - "Ask clarifying questions. If any of those questions has a clear best recommendation, please select that yourself and record that in "autorecommendations.md". - "Have codex and antigravity review each of these and work to consensus."

These are the core of ~61 lines of prompting I do across 3 prompts, and I feel like the resulting artifacts describe some of the thinking. Also, some of the back-and-forth between the models feels like it gives some insight into the model "thinking".

I will say: I heavily used Fable when it was available; Opus + loops + codex and/or antigravity review is better than Fable at building things.

▲

lsdmtme a day ago | parent | next [-]

What are you using exactly to have claude code natively interact with codex and antigravity?

Mind sharing your prompts?

	▲	linsomniac a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I wrote up the prompts and supporting information here: https://linsomniac.com/post/2026-06-22-ai_loops_and_collabor...
	▲	linsomniac a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Not at all, I do have a meeting here, I'll try to get it up in around 2h.

▲

radarsat1 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

is it strictly necessary to use different models or can you get similar results by doing the same thing but just using eg Codex in different agents & persona? curious if you've compared this

	▲	linsomniac a day ago \| parent [-]
		I haven't specifically compared this. I "feel" like the different models have different strengths and weaknesses, so the collaboration produces great results, assuming cost is no object. ;-)