4 ms·
Nice - I do something similar in a semi manual way. I do find Codex very good at reviewing work marked as completed by Claude, especially when I get Claude to
by edf13 6mo ago
Nice - I do something similar in a semi manual way.
I do find Codex very good at reviewing work marked as completed by Claude, especially when I get Claude to write up its work with a why,where & how doc.
It’s very rare Claude has fully completed the task successfully and Codex doesn’t find issues.
- axldelafosse 6mo agoI created the first version of loop after getting tired of doing this manually!
- edf13 6mo agoI’m going to take a look today!
- nurettin 6mo agoClaude is also good at that. I made a habit of asking "are you sure?" after a complex task. It usually says it overlooked something.
- ctmnt 6mo agoI find both to be true. I use Claude for most of the implementation, and Codex always catches mistakes. Always. But both of them benefit from being asked if they’re sure they did everything.
- lancekey 6mo agoDo you see any benefit in doing this locally versus having Codex review the PR Claude generates?
- axldelafosse 6mo agoThe feedback loop is faster. But PR reviews are still useful as they are multiplayer (meaning that you and another human reviewer can talk about a specific agent's comment directly on the diff, which is very useful sometimes).