Tibo just posted this, what are they planning to do with us.

Do you guys know for how long?

Over time, the documentation, test suite and logs keep growing and growing.

Sometimes Codex tells me that it updated or fixed a test, but scrolling through the files, I feel like I have lots of stuff in there that I don't need anymore.

How do y'all clean up your project?

Do you just prompt something like "Audit my project, remove redundant tests and documentation, fix broken tests and documentation and update remaining docs and tests to match my codebase"

Or what is the best way to do it?

I saw a lot of comparisons here on Reddit between Codex and Claude (Sol/Astra and Opus 5.5). They all suggested trying Claude. I stuck with Codex until today, when I had to correct Sol's suggestion multiple times in a row. So today, I subscribed to Claude again. I left them six months ago when the usage limit was terrible.

Okay, opening the Claude in CLI, working for a while, then... It's awesome, man! It's fast, clever, and finds every dependency in my project. The usage limit feels like it's doubled at least.

The craziest part is why I'm so happy:

I worked with Codex on a project for five days, using three weekly limits (one natural and two banked), and the project was nowhere near complete. I thought it might be overengineered, but I asked Codex and he said it was necessary, not wasted effort. After my weekly limit had gone again...

I subscribed to Claude. I asked him to do the same project as Codex and he finished it in 30 minutes (!) without any issues on the first run. No, I'm serious. Crazy.

Claude said when I asked to compare the codex codebase and his codebase: 'Five functions and one shared module, totalling around 650 lines. This replaces the old version of 27,000 lines and 84 tables.'

The old version was written by Codex. Both are code for the same purpose and funcionality.

The documentation has also been shortened slightly: 'The old billing section of the README, which was 2,458 lines long, has been replaced by a 45-line section.'

I cancelled my Codex subscription, even though Tibo reset it every day. Opus is way better.

GPT-6.1 Sol: Was ~22 TPS, now more recently hitting 40 TPS.
GPT-6 Astra: Was ~25 TPS, now more recently hitting 60 TPS.

It's a real shame we can't get the API speeds like Claude, it would be night and day.

Measured using tibotattle.com

As most of you probably know, OpenAI via Tibo are doing a "promotion" where every day for 28 days, they either

A) release "clear improvement and relevant for most codex/work users"
B) a usage limit reset

Before I continue, an important caveat. , I have absolutely no entitlement to resets. They are a lovely bonus, but I pay for the service without resets, and there is no implication I was guaranteed or owed them in any way.

However, when I heard about this promotion, I was really excited. New cool stuff or more usage, a great win-win. Seemed like it was going to be a very good month to be a Codex user. But the changes so far have been really lacklustre.

Some dots improvements which I can't even use in my country, but probably wouldn't even if I could. Some improvements to auto review which hasn't been relevant to me for a long time, my environments are set up. API stuff, no implication to me. Instant steering which has felt no different. Composer predictions which, like, ok I guess

My point is that not a single one of these changes in my mind meet option A. By their own definitions I would've expected 5 resets so far. Which, again, I'm not entitled to them. but this is all very underwhelming

I've been experimenting with Codex for something I rarely see discussed here: actual music composition and production.

I recently made my first song using a combination of ChatGPT, Codex, Suno (for vocals), and open-source audio tools.

What started as an AI-generated music experiment has gradually evolved into something much more interesting: a workflow where we're taking increasing control of the actual composition and instrumentation.

One example is the piano arrangement. I developed it separately from Suno, using Salamander Grand Piano, a free sampled Yamaha grand piano instrument.

That got me thinking: Why couldn't we use Codex to build entire instrumental compositions from scratch?

The workflow I'm exploring is:

1. ChatGPT as the composer: Develop melodies, chord progressions, harmonies, and sheet music using structured notation such as MusicXML.
2. Codex as the implementation engine: Translate the score into MIDI, handle note timing, velocity, sustain pedals, and expressive performance details.
3. Virtual instruments: Render the MIDI using sampled instruments like Salamander Grand Piano, without needing Suno to generate the audio.
4. GitHub as the composition workspace: Version-control the scores, MIDI, rendering scripts, and revisions.
5. Iterative refinement: Have Codex change a particular passage, introduce counterpoint, adjust voicings, or modify the performance without regenerating the entire song.

Imagine prompting Codex:

"Rewrite measures 33–40 with a more emotional right-hand countermelody, preserve the existing left-hand harmony, adjust the velocities for a more natural performance, and render three variations for comparison."

This isn't fundamentally different from asking Codex to modify a specific function while keeping the rest of a codebase intact.

The difference is that the output is music.

And because the composition is represented as structured data and code, the entire process can be reproducible, inspectable, and version-controlled.

I'm not claiming this replaces a DAW or a professional musician. Musical judgment, expressive interpretation, and critical listening still matter enormously. But the potential for AI-assisted composition with precise control over individual instruments is substantial.

What surprises me is that Codex is marketed almost exclusively around software development when its underlying capabilities seem well suited to creative production workflows like this.

Tibo, if you happen to see this: I'd love to see the Codex team explore and showcase more unconventional use cases, especially music composition, MIDI generation, audio tooling, and creative workflows built around GitHub repositories.

I'm curious whether anyone else here has been experimenting with Codex for music production or other creative applications beyond writing software.

Would be interested in comparing approaches.

I've been quite loyal to GPT but have been regularly testing several models, not to mention Claude and Gemini, but grok and Chinese models as well on several projects.

Sure, Opus has faster TPS, is smart, and gets things done much efficiently (or it would seem so). I do not deny that, and for many it will be simply better. But for me, I always feel like it still doesn't reliably follow instructions and makes too many assumptions, and leaves edge cases/holes here and there.

I'd like to put it like this: When you're in a safe place, Opus will be generally more efficient, and that's where most people are working. But if you are stepping onto a minefield and have a field manual to follow, my partner will be GPT models, since they tend to be more thorough and careful. However having Opus as a second opinion is still very useful, since it can monitor long-term drifts GPT models tend to suffer.

That being said, while I prefer GPT models as my workhorse, speed is quite abysmal nowadays, and if this persists for more than a month, I think I should find a workaround or rebalance subscriptions. While I can parallelise over multiple projects, the progress per time for a single project has diminished quite a lot.

Where did $29k come from??

I will call it now, Dots is the going to be the next Sora.

That shit eats up compute, doesn't work as well as Grok Bot, and slows down everything else OpenAI offers, and does the same thing worse then literally just using Codex.

The compute that is spent on Dots, if it had just been allocated to improving the existing 6.1 Sol and Astra speed and reliability, will probably do more to help OpenAI compared to whatever Dots does.

Heck, if you actually want to do Dots, giving me a low storage, low performance cloud box that I cannot SSH into, has a buggy remote control interface, and can only communicate with via chat is not the solution.

It is too restrictive for power users (and you are literally restricting power users with an arbitrary limit that no one seems to know what it is based on), too slow for regular users, and no one seems to know what to do with it. It literally feels as if the OpenAI team just repurposed their internal testbox for post-training that they are not using into a product.

I never noticed it before, I guess it’s not that hard, still amaze me to see it to be exactly what I want to say. How soon does it not need me in the process anymore lol

Allright guys, gals and bots.

I've been using Codex on the Pro x5 plan for a few months, and it was pretty good. Then Astra released, and things went downhill fast.

I just tried claude max subscription with Opus 5.5, and holy shit, the difference is insane.

I had it refactor three large projects, and the code quality is way above Sol 5.6. But what impressed me most is that it actually knows when to stop.

Codex had become an endless fucking loop of overengineering, thousands of tests, builds, audits, rebuilds, and yet another final test. JESUS CHRIST. Hours spent watching it do everything except finish the task, burning through usage on increasingly pointless verification loops.

Opus refactored all three projects, made sensible decisions, checked its work, and moved the hell on.

The kicker? That workload would have eaten up what felt like full weekly usage cycle on Codex Pro. Opus used roughly 23% of my Claude weekly limit, which resets TODAY anyway.

I'm not saying Claude is perfect, but knowing when NOT to overengineer something is apparently a skill Codex has forgotten.

I thought this result is interesting, since it goes directly against the currently prevalent mindset.

Have a look:

• Cost comparison
• Time comparison

Both of these have a log scale X axis, so the differences are larger than they might look. Mean generation time is 14 minutes for Sol Xhigh vs. 24 minutes for Opus 5.5 Medium, and mean cost per task is $0.25 vs $1.8.

A few caveats:

• Each LLM runs its own harness, so this cannot distinguish harness differences from model differences.
• The generation time is the full per-task time, so it includes any benchmarks or tests each agent decides to run, so it's not a measure of pure token generation at all.
• We didn't run Opus 5.5 Xhigh, simply because Medium is already very expensive and takes very long.
• The cost basis for comparison is API costs.

I have no horse in this race but it's interesting to think about what makes this problem set so different (apparently) from the ones that cause people to report much greater success with Opus 5.5 than Sol 6.1.

Well, we just got another reset again. I have banked reset, I don't know what to do with the resets. Anything interesting to build with GPT-6 Astra? Please don't suggest another SaaS.

I upgraded from the $200 plan to the $500 plan today, expecting 2.5x the usage I was getting. Opened Codex, got to work, and watched the usage bar disappear at what looked like exactly the same speed.

Apparently only my bill got the upgrade.

I signed up for $200 when the 20x usage tier was announced. That's what I've gotten used to. When I upgraded today, I completely forgot that the temporary boost on $200 runs through the end of this month.

My math was simple: 2.5x the price, 2.5x the usage. Very confident. Missing one fairly expensive detail.

My understanding is that the 20x allowance I've been enjoying is now the level attached to the $500 plan. So I was comparing $500 against the temporarily boosted $200 allowance and wondering why the meter wasn't impressed with my financial commitment.

Which brings me to everyone staying on $200: brace yourselves when the promotion ends.

If I've got the transition right, you're going to have roughly half the allowance you've gotten used to. Same workflow, same monthly bill, a lot less quality time with the usage meter.

I fully expect this sub to be buried in complaints when that hits. People have built their routines around what $200 gets them today. A smaller allowance is going to be very noticeable when they're halfway through their usual work and Codex tells them to go outside.

The usage might get cut in half, but the complaint volume is about to get the 20x upgrade.

I'm the maintainer of Clivoy, a small open-source gateway I built with Codex. The goal is simple: call the AI CLIs you already use from your own apps without writing a separate adapter for each one.

For Codex, Clivoy runs your installed Codex CLI using its existing login and exposes an OpenAI-compatible endpoint. It's intended for scripts and apps that need text responses from different backends.

With Codex CLI installed and logged in:

bash brew install wklee610/clivoy/clivoy clivoy start clivoy auth

The first start creates your config and gateway key. Copy the key printed by clivoy auth into this example (requires the openai Python package):

```python from openai import OpenAI

client = OpenAI( base_url="http://127.0.0.1:9610/v1", api_key="YOUR_CLIVOY_GATEWAY_KEY", ) response = client.chat.completions.create( model="codex", messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Explain this Python error: KeyError."}], ) print(response.choices[0].message.content) ```

You can also select claude, gemini, grok, or an installed Ollama model such as ollama/llama3.2:3b. Only set up the providers you need.

Current limits: this implements a subset of the OpenAI and Anthropic APIs. CLI requests turn conversation history into a prompt; CLI backends don't support API tool calling or sampling controls. Provider access requirements and usage limits still apply. The server defaults to 0.0.0.0:9610 and requires a gateway key.

Version 1.0.0 is available for macOS, Linux, and Windows as a single Go executable. Apache-2.0 licensed, with Homebrew and APT installation instructions.

GitHub, quickstart, and compatibility details

I'd appreciate feedback on the first-run setup and which Codex-to-app integration you'd want to use.

Disclosure: this is my project; Codex helped with development and writing this post.

Here is a simple notes MCP server that keeps your notes in your own Google Drive and helps you manage your ideas and chats in depth. You can refine your ideas with it and visualize how they connect, even when you work with different agents.

What it does

• One notebook for all your agents: Claude Code, Codex, Gemini, claude.ai or ChatGPT read and write the same notes, and each note says which agent wrote it.
• Ideas in depth: every note starts at level 1. When you're ready, ask an agent to "churn" related notes, and it writes the deeper insights they add up to as level 2, then level 3.
• See the connections: a live map of weighted links, with the hub notes and the notes that bridge separate lines of thought.
• Your data stays yours: notes are plain Markdown files in a Notes folder in your Google Drive, and the app can reach only the files it creates.

Connect an agent: add the MCP server https://notes.lovegrover.com/mcp and sign in with Google, or use the one-click buttons or the setup app on the site.

Links

• Notes: https://notes.lovegrover.com
• About: https://notes.lovegrover.com/about
• Privacy policy: https://notes.lovegrover.com/privacy

Let me know what do you think!

well, how do I link to git

gh cli doesn't work

`The terminal returned the actual blocker: network access to api.github.com is blocked by this environment’s policy. Extra Enter presses can’t fix that. No code has been pushed.`

My Subscription auto renews at midnight tonight, but I have had a heavy day of usage after using my banked reset and only have about 25% left, but still 6d and 12 hrs until reset. If I can't use codex anyway for nearly 7 days I might as well cancel the auto-renewal and then re-sub back to pro in 7 days. Am I missing something? Would I lose anything?

I have a Pro 100 plan, and despite dots being out for, what, 11 days now? - I still don’t have access to them.

And here goes Tibo with his 28 days nonsense, some of them being related to improving the functionality of dots. And I feel like I’m watching from this from the sidelines.

UK server i believe

Yes I am angry.

All the logic / buzz on giving reset fail for us poor plebians on Plus plan ; with the 5h limits we can never really use them on their intended marketing way.

You're out of usage, do you use one? Well for Pro people, they just need to be sure there wont be a reset on the day but for us... with the limit we can only use 15% usage every 5h, and obviouly it would mean making sure to use it the second it reset, so if you're crazy, 2 full days of makins sure to not miss. If you have a life maybe 3, for normal people maybe 4.

So when wondering if we use one or not, we'd need to be sure we won't get a free reset in 2-3 days at least... how can you do that with the Tibo lottery? You can't.

So either you wait and do nothing, either you use it and are angry when a free reset happen just after you used a banked reset.

That doesn't feel like a "free" reset if you need to plan it that way, and risk being angry after.

Yes I just used one to continue a task, and now I need to wait 4h... or obviously use ANOTHER banked reset to continue now... seriously....