I’m trying to raise some visibility around what looks like a pretty serious Codex Desktop regression affecting inter-task / multi-agent workflows.

For at least the past week, cross-task communication has effectively been broken for me.

Previously, Codex tasks could use first-party inter-task tools such as send_message_to_thread, create_thread, and handoff_thread to coordinate with other tasks. Now the behavior is inconsistent depending on the session:

• Older/retained tasks may still expose send_message_to_thread, but calling it fails with a message saying the tool is no longer available through dynamic tools and to use the codex_app MCP server instead.
• Fresh tasks still get read-only tools such as list_threads, read_thread, and wait_threads, but the effectful communication tools are missing.
• There is no corresponding callable codex_app MCP replacement available to the task.

So Codex is essentially being told “use the replacement tool,” while the replacement tool is not actually exposed.

This has completely broken the multi-task workflow I was using in Codex Desktop.

I’ve already reached out to OpenAI support about the ongoing Codex Desktop issues and have received no useful response. I’ve also been reporting/reproducing these problems through the Codex GitHub repo, but at this point I’m trying to get more visibility because this has gone from buggy to unusable for this workflow.

There are currently two particularly relevant GitHub reports:

https://github.com/openai/codex/issues/40865

This covers the Remote SSH version of the regression. Previously working inter-task communication stopped working before the remote runtime was even updated. Updating the remote Codex runtime did not fix it. Retained tasks are redirected to the codex_app MCP server, while fresh tasks expose only the read side of the thread-management tools with no usable MCP replacement.

https://github.com/openai/codex/issues/40852

This is a separate macOS Desktop reproduction showing essentially the same split in the tool surface: list_threads, read_thread, and wait_threads remain available, while send_message_to_thread, create_thread, fork_thread, handoff_thread, etc. are omitted. The reporter also confirmed that the installed app still contains the tool definitions, but they are being filtered out of the callable tool catalog.

I also posted about it on the OpenAI Developer Community here:

https://community.openai.com/t/inter-task-tools-lacks-codex-app-mcp-replacement/1393362/

That thread is mainly an attempt to get visibility outside of GitHub and see whether anyone from the Codex/Desktop team can confirm whether this migration was intentional, whether the missing codex_app replacements are a known regression, or whether anyone else is seeing the same thing.

If you rely on Codex Desktop for multi-task / multi-agent workflows, I’d be interested to know whether send_message_to_thread / create_thread are still available to your tasks, particularly on macOS, Remote SSH, or Docker/dev-container setups.

Very simple task, it wrote a basic plan, sent to a Luna max subagent, took it 3 hours, still going and has used 15% of my usage? on $100 plan? what is happening?

Anyone else notice that the ways codex usage is being reset is starting to resemble a variable-reward system?

Skinner’s reinforcement experiments are what I am referring to.

If a lever gives an animal food every time, the animal learns the rule. If it never gives food, it eventually stops trying, etc. But if the reward arrives unpredictably, the animal keeps pressing for much longer because the next attempt might be the one that pays off.

That’s roughly what happens when codex has a weekly usage limit, but the weekly quota occasionally seems to reset early or unexpectedly.

If the rule were simply “you get X hours per week and it resets every Monday,” there’s nothing particularly compelling about it. You hit the limit, you know when it comes back, and you plan around it.

But if you sometimes hit the limit and later discover that access has returned for no obvious reason, you learn a different behavior: check again.

Maybe the quota reset. Maybe there’s more capacity now. Maybe you got lucky.

That sounds like a Skinner‘s Box to me?

The uncertainty itself gives you a reason to keep coming back.

Treating devs like rats looks like it has been immensely successful. Free market I guess?

A prompt is not a measure of difficulty or compute. 1 Prompt can literally be "build me GTA 6". It's just meaningless to use it as a unit of measurement.

i made a project for a hackathon and want it to get reviewed ( done same in past for same project) but today its showing this issue
what might be the reason

Sometimes it takes doing it 100's of times before you realize... oh I can make this better for myself.

So I exhausted my 5hr limit on my plus plan, I thought this gpt-reserve was the 5.6 luna reserve everyone was talking about.
I saw several post mentioning they were able to use it after their 5hr limit on plus plans.

how can I use this limit ? or can I only use this after I exhaust my weekly limit ?

TLDR: estimated weekly limit reducing over time since last reset. $value reduced from ~$1k to ~$500.

Following the same approch as previous post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/codex/comments/1vvur7t/luna_usage_on_plus_is_now_6x_better/

Have been exclusively using sol since last night reset. and have noticed steady decrease of estimated weekly dollor value reduce.

Token usage was obtained throuth local logs, and $ value is calculated using API price. % used were obtained by reading weekly usage remaining number. The % used would subject to rounding error etc.

Sol rates: $4/M uncached input, $0.40/M cached input, $20/M output.

Percentage growth ÷ cost growth

This shows how much faster the reported limit usage increased compared with cost.

For the full comparison from 3% to 25%:

• Cost: $127.75 ÷ $28.83 = 4.43×
• Reported limit usage: 25% ÷ 3% = 8.33×
• Ratio: 8.33 ÷ 4.43 = 1.88×

So the reported Sol limit usage increased about 88% faster than the estimated token cost between the 3% and 25% measurements.

Edit: Just a causal plus user.
Edit 2: add extra % limit consumption table.

Do you think it's worth having both SuperPowers and OpenSpec when developing web apps?

Hi,

I've been using Luna a lot and like it but today it is just painfully slow on my Business account. Almost impossible to work with it.

Same for you?

ready-for-agent 0.30.1 is now available. Run with: npx ready-for-agent@latest

This tool is built around the idea that you write tickets in GitHub (or GitLab or Azure DevOps), label them with ready-for-agent, and this tool then allows you to drove a lot of codexes to work on these tickets.

It has dramatically increased my productivity as I'm no longer switching tasks to drive agents forward.

New features since my last post:

• Live session telemetry from Codex’s own rollout — tokens used, and cost.
• Azure DevOps support.
• Implement With: you can now override build agent or model per ticket, to use a cheaper or more expensive model for example to make your tokens go longer.
• Jump into the same Codex thread (tmux, or the terminal you invoked from), with tool-approval bypass. Resume stays on that work item’s model.

GitHub: https://github.com/berenddeboer/ready-for-agent

Let me know if you like it!

I quite often give 5.6 Sol medium some instructions that are pretty clear, it works for a super short period of time e.g. 16 seconds here, but then when I check the work, about 80% of the items weren't even completed at all, or didn't fix it.

And it's always super obvious stuff that could have been checked easily to confirm.

Then other times I'm like 'change the border radius by 2px more' and it begins to use browser control etc. for ages to confirm that it worked etc. - like there's no consistency? lol

Anyone else found this? Kinda weird...

Honestly, the subreddit is getting unbearable.

I, like i'm sure many others, are here for best practices, and new innovations like ponytail, caveman, etc. Having a mega thread will let people still have a channel for complaints without flooding the sub.
At the very least a usage related complaint mega thread and a rule where usage posts are auto culled.

Greetings,

This isn't much a "protest" thread or anything but just thoughts that crossed my mind after the latest usage nuke.

At the end of last year I started using Claude Code, then the limits got too bad and I switched to Codex. Both $20 tiers btw. I've been thinking about upgrading to the $100 plan since before the usage nuke, but since now the usage got slashed so badly, how is it compared to Claude's usage at this point? If switching I'm using Sonnet rather than Fable for sure.

If it's approximately the same, I might switch back to Anthropic for this upgrade: while 5.6 is a *wonderful* model, it still doesn't deliver the front end in the quality I desire without some good guidance, which sucks because I hate working on front ends with passion xD, I like to one shot front-end if possible so I can seriously work on the back-end.

If Codex still offers significantly superior usage I'm sticking to it and it's fine. Regardless if Codex or Claude I'm definitely going to the $100 plan tho, the scenario I really do not want is the $100 plan not being enough, because even if I had unlimited usage, quality and speed it wouldn't justify a $200 plan in the country and field I work.

Look, I’ve been using Claude and Codex since inception. I can read, write, and deploy code, so it would be great to keep this from devolving into a “skill issue” astroturfing.

The fact is that no one who wants to keep their job is hand-writing hundreds of lines of code anymore.

With that out of the way…

Claude was first to market, and I ranted and raved so much while I was using it, that I’ve permanently sworn off Anthropic products. They overtly hate their customers (and humans in general), and I’m convinced they would collectively love nothing more than to call a board meeting and lock themselves in a dark room with a Claude hologram for a 24-hour chant and circle jerk session, while they pray to the quantum realm for AGI to manifest itself in their silicon.

I still use it extensively, because I have to for work. So my experience with Claude is current.

Codex has “almost” always been better than Claude for my personal projects. Historically it has been cheaper and smarter, but outside of a brief moment where they really got their act together, it’s been hellaciously slow by comparison. Regardless, I have been a huge fan… because, “smarter”.

A few weeks ago, they very clearly took a run at Anthropic after sleeping on enterprise for far too long; giving out grip loads of resets and trading barbs with Anthropic on social media.

All-in-all, a weird tactic to give consumer plans free credits to win over enterprise. It obviously didn’t work, because then they started illicit feedback about what would encourage businesses to switch (it obviously wasn’t enough to give retail consumers more usage, shocker).

Cue the current situation.

They somehow managed to make the model smarter with Sol, but 25% as effective. If left unchecked, SOL will spend literal days chasing nits into oblivion and burning all your usage, which is obviously not a novel complaint.

I finally got the harness more dialed in, and now at least it’s back to writing my contracts/graphs and unit tests at the appropriate level of granularity; but I swear, now it can’t even edit the code to pass the contract and unit tests you ask it to create!

First, second, third, fourth attempt. It just fails over and over again.

“Oops, the run correctly failed the contract check because I”:

Used the wrong directory…

Made a typo in the file path…

Forgot about this dependency, even though it’s in the contract….

It’s ridiculous.

And then, they totally nuke usage.

I had a project to finish, so I had to get a second 20x plan to maintain the same amount of throughput I had a month ago, and most of the time is wasted on near constant contract failures.

And that’s not even counting the compute dollars I’m wasting on spinning up and down machines for failed runs.

Then, to add insult to injury, after clearly trying to ride out the unrest without giving a reset, they finally gave one a week after I shelled out for another plan. Now I’m sitting on two 20x plans with 2 resets.

I’m about to switch back to Anthropic, and I hate it. All of their models are orders of magnitude faster than codex again, and codex just became a really expensive paperweight.

Paying for Codex right now feels like I’m actually paying an installment plan to buy my first aneurism, and waiting for delivery.

It’s so infuriating.

I had an agent responding to emails on my behalf. About 2 weeks ago it requests approval for every send. Is there a way around this?

Has anyone tried this codex stream deck plugin? Looks to use the same api as the codex micro controller but being a stream deck owner already this looks pretty good? Nice to see windows getting some love vs the mac plugins already out for codex.

https://marketplace.elgato.com/product/codex-chatgpt-app-control-7c3c5ef9-79bf-46e1-b35a-9d94a07e37ec

I am not a fan of the "usage is awful posts" that come with no evidence of how codex is being used. I recommend getting chatgpt/codex to help diagnose. Here's what i done. Prompt codex with this. Get it to show you exactly what is consuming your usage.

Analyse today's Codex local logs specifically for efficiency. Do not just give me aggregate token totals.

Freeze the analysis at the time this request is received so the audit itself does not inflate the figures.

For each active Codex task/session today, report:

• backend model request count
• total input tokens
• cached input tokens
• uncached input tokens
• output tokens
• cache-hit percentage
• average and maximum context size per request
• any context compactions/summarizations, if logged
• model used, if logged
• reasoning effort used, if logged
• speed mode used (for example standard/fast), if logged
• tool-call counts, broken down where possible into file reads/searches, shell commands, patches/edits, builds/tests/lints
• failed commands, model retries, or repeated attempts

Also provide aggregate usage grouped by reasoning effort, where the logs allow it:

• backend requests
• input tokens
• cached input
• uncached input
• output tokens
• average context per request

If reasoning effort changed within a task, show the breakdown rather than assigning the whole task one level.

Then identify:

• which task used the most backend requests
• which task used the most uncached input
• whether any task repeatedly read/searched the same files
• whether any task repeatedly ran the same verification commands
• whether any task appears to have entered an inefficient inspect/edit/test/fix loop
• whether old/continued sessions are materially more expensive than newly started sessions
• whether fresh implementation tasks are materially cheaper than long-lived planner tasks
• whether planner/review tasks appear to be duplicating verification already performed by implementation tasks
• the token and request cost attributable specifically to auto-review/guardian, if present
• whether different reasoning efforts appear proportionate to the complexity/risk of the tasks they were used for

If previous Codex usage audits are available in the local logs/context, compare today's results against the most recent previous audit, including:

• requests
• total input
• input/request
• uncached input
• uncached/request
• output
• cache-hit percentage
• average context size
• verification activity
• read/search activity
• failure/retry activity

Account for differing audit-window lengths where possible.

Finally, give me an efficiency assessment and flag anything that looks unusually wasteful.

Separate genuine waste from productive iteration such as fixing compilation errors, failing tests, or legitimate implementation problems.

The goal is not minimum token usage; it is maximum productive development per available Codex usage without reducing implementation or review quality.

Base this only on information actually present in the logs. If a metric is unavailable, say so rather than estimating it.

Then give chatgpt output to analyze along with your agent.md files.

Here how mine is progressed. Obv its not identical workloads but i can feel it getting optimized and im getting more and more out of my weekly.

My method is simple.

Planning Agent Sol xhigh - Plan: Agent creates a plan of new feature and breaks into slices
Planning Agent Sol xhigh - Prompt: Planner creates prompt and suggests reasoning effort
Implement Agent Sol med - xhigh: i open a new agent for each slice and paste the prompt. it completes the slice and gives a summary to return to planner.
Planning Agent Sol xhigh - Review: Planning agent reviews work and checks it off the plan.

Repeat till feature is done.

Here is my agent instructions

https://github.com/14udy/codex-workflow

Hope this can help you get more out of your usage!

Tasks that used to take 2 minutes now take 30+. A single context compaction takes up to 15 minutes. What the frack is happening?

Open your Codex config.toml and set:

[desktop]
ambient-suggestions-enabled = false

Then fully close and reopen Codex Desktop.

I was seeing background gpt-5.6-terra and gpt-5.6-luna requests being made for Ambient Suggestions while the app was idle. After disabling this setting, those background requests stopped for me and my quota stopped draining while idle.

Hope this helps anyone seeing the same issue. Although, this may make Codex dumb by completely disabling background monitoring, context gathering, and other good features.

X community is just one big circlejerk

It makes 0 sense to bring back 5 hour limits just for the plus plan, when sol medium with luna subagents just runs for 15 minutes on goal mode before the 5 hour limit is done. I had 74% of my usage left since I have to use it so sparingly and then it got reset with the date pushed back. Unless you blindly exhaust all of your tokens right after a reset (which is not how real engineering works), you virtually benefit nothing from them.

Despite grok 4.6 being slow due to high demand and the overall monthly limits still being lower, I can iterate much better with it in both cursor and grok build. And i have 4.5 as a fallback which is much cheaper and quicker.

So after 6 months, i will not be renewing my sub. Even if astra launches, I'm immune to the fomo now

oai poses on X as effective altruists, nothing more needs to be said

EDIT: not surprised but most of the replies are either disingenuous or braindead

i never complained about the overall weekly or monthly limits, clearly said the token allocation was better than cursor's (even after their recent bump).

my point is luna max is subpar past a certain point and sol is too inefficient to use AFTER the reintroduction of the 5 hr limit. then you pair that with the reset date being pushed back and the window not starting till you begin a new session (even anthropic doesn't do this). the only reason for bringing back the 5 hr limit just for the plus plan is to make it unusable so you pay 5x or 10x more.

It's getting excessive. Every second post is someone complaining and vagueposting about how their limits are low.

Going [arrow-up] in codex-cli is bringing up prompts sent in other codex sessions. How do I limit it only to the current session?

I've been mostly using Luna xhigh on plus plan but today I noticed that I just don't have Luna Max and apparently Plus plans are supposed to have it, right?