2 ms·

> iirc no way to focus the originating terminal pane on notif click. Yeah mine has the same issue - it just brings up the script editor. It's not as much of a

> iirc no way to focus the originating terminal pane on notif click. Yeah mine has the same issue - it just brings up the script editor. It's not as much of an issue for me since I'm rarely running more than a single Opencode instance at a time. Could definitely see that being useful if you were running quite a few agents to let you hone in on the correct terminal window/tab quickly though.

hombre_fatal 7mo ago
Yeah, exactly. I have so many agents running these days. 1-2 per project. Often one is polishing a plan file for the next feature/bugfix (claude), and the other is reviewing it to give feedback (codex). And that is my life now. But on the upside, it's trivial to maintain sideprojects now.
- vunderba 7mo ago
  Nice. You have a similar setup to mine. I've found OpenAI's gpt-5.3-codex (at xhigh) to be pretty dismal at actual implementation but it's surprisingly adept at performing a high level feature branch review and catching issues that are missed by Gemini/Claude.
  - hombre_fatal 7mo ago
    Yeah, through trial and error I found that Codex (now gpt-5.4) has really good feedback once there's a plan file. Kinda like someone on the internet who suddenly becomes an expert once you make concrete claims for them to shred into. I have an AGENTS.md prompt that specifies how to review a plan. Something like: for every finding, rank the top solutions internally and then recommend a solution. And if there's a simpler, better pivot that the plan should take, pitch it at the end. It's really actionable, and I basically can paste the review back into Claude, then tell Codex to re-review the plan, and repeat this until it has nothing more to add, and now I have a really good plan.
    - vunderba 7mo ago
      Nice. I have a similar loop (Opus 4.6 plan <-> Codex xhigh review) that I kind of run in an iterative feedback loop until meaningful actionables converge down to zero. I initially gave some thought to automating this because CC/Codex do have SDKs... but every once in a while Codex will propose some absurdly over-engineered stack advice that I have to manually reject before passing it back to Claude.
      - hombre_fatal 7mo ago
        Man, we are on the the exact same page. Yeah, I also thought about automating it before. Especially when I'm middlemanning noncritical plans where I don't care what the solution is. I did make a skill /ask-codex that gets Claude to call Codex for one round of feedback which is pretty useful. But for critical plans, I suppose being the middleman gives me a good opportunity to learn about the solution and its trade-offs as it's being incrementally refined. Especially in a domain I don't know much about.

hombre_fatal 7mo ago

Yeah, exactly. I have so many agents running these days. 1-2 per project. Often one is polishing a plan file for the next feature/bugfix (claude), and the other is reviewing it to give feedback (codex). And that is my life now. But on the upside, it's trivial to maintain sideprojects now.

vunderba 7mo ago
Nice. You have a similar setup to mine. I've found OpenAI's gpt-5.3-codex (at xhigh) to be pretty dismal at actual implementation but it's surprisingly adept at performing a high level feature branch review and catching issues that are missed by Gemini/Claude.
- hombre_fatal 7mo ago
  Yeah, through trial and error I found that Codex (now gpt-5.4) has really good feedback once there's a plan file. Kinda like someone on the internet who suddenly becomes an expert once you make concrete claims for them to shred into. I have an AGENTS.md prompt that specifies how to review a plan. Something like: for every finding, rank the top solutions internally and then recommend a solution. And if there's a simpler, better pivot that the plan should take, pitch it at the end. It's really actionable, and I basically can paste the review back into Claude, then tell Codex to re-review the plan, and repeat this until it has nothing more to add, and now I have a really good plan.
  - vunderba 7mo ago
    Nice. I have a similar loop (Opus 4.6 plan <-> Codex xhigh review) that I kind of run in an iterative feedback loop until meaningful actionables converge down to zero. I initially gave some thought to automating this because CC/Codex do have SDKs... but every once in a while Codex will propose some absurdly over-engineered stack advice that I have to manually reject before passing it back to Claude.
    - hombre_fatal 7mo ago
      Man, we are on the the exact same page. Yeah, I also thought about automating it before. Especially when I'm middlemanning noncritical plans where I don't care what the solution is. I did make a skill /ask-codex that gets Claude to call Codex for one round of feedback which is pretty useful. But for critical plans, I suppose being the middleman gives me a good opportunity to learn about the solution and its trade-offs as it's being incrementally refined. Especially in a domain I don't know much about.