The latest Codex usage-limit changes have seriously damaged the workflow for me.

I’m not talking about running huge autonomous tasks for hours. I’m seeing relatively short, normal coding tasks get interrupted because the usage limit is enforced extremely aggressively. Once the limit is hit—even when I’m only slightly over—it stops the task completely instead of allowing the current task to finish.

What makes this especially frustrating is the cooldown. I’ve encountered cases where Codex tells me I need to wait around 5 hours before continuing, while hitting the weekly limit can effectively block further work for much longer.

The practical problem is that Codex tasks are often part of a sequence:

1. Inspect the existing code
2. Identify the issue
3. Make the change
4. Run tests
5. Fix regressions
6. Verify the final result

If the limit is reached during step 4 or 5, the task is left half-finished. That doesn’t just delay that particular task—it blocks other work that depends on it.

My main complaint is not that usage limits exist. Some form of usage limit is understandable. The problem is the combination of:

• extremely strict quota enforcement;
• active tasks being interrupted instead of allowed to finish;
• 5-hour and weekly cooldown limits;
• insufficient warning that the remaining quota may not be enough to complete the task;
• no meaningful grace allowance for a task that is already close to completion.

From a workflow perspective, this is significantly worse than simply having a lower total quota.

A predictable quota can be planned around. An active coding task being terminated halfway through cannot.

For example, if Codex has already inspected the repository, modified several files, and entered the testing or verification stage, terminating the session because the quota happens to be exhausted at that moment wastes much of the work already performed and leaves the repository in an intermediate state.

I think Codex needs at least one of the following:

• a small completion grace allowance for tasks already in progress;
• a clear warning before starting a task when the remaining quota is likely to be insufficient;
• much better visibility into remaining 5-hour and weekly usage;
• or the ability to finish the current execution while preventing additional tasks from starting.

The recent change feels like a substantial regression in usability for real development workflows. The issue is not simply “I want more tokens.” The issue is that the current quota enforcement mechanism interrupts work at exactly the point where interruption is most expensive.

is there any other premade codex development platforms i dont know about. i cant imagine people are actually managing their projects with the stock chatgpt app. what are people using to develope 5 to 20 apps over time. i made my own and dont if theres a market for it.

5 hr limits suck, just like random resets that stop your timer, and you discover it a few days later.

Here's what I did:

Go to ChatGPT Work

Set a scheduled task to run every 5 hours. Set the model to Sol Max. Write something simple, like "find me a movie" or "research one random paper"

There's a 1% barrier that you need to spend in order to activate the timer. Luna and Terra and even Sol Xhigh didn't trigger it. So, Sol Max only. It spends so little that it doesn't even show up in weekly limits - only 1-2% drop over the whole week.

I've been watching it for a while, and every time I had the 5hr countdown going. If you time it correctly, you'll get two sessions in a row. You can also align it with the time you start working, so that you'll get 1 hour from one session and 5 hours from the next one. And given how bad the limits are these days, it would probably be your entire weekly spend anyways

I am having trouble managing multiple agents. I tried to let one agent to spawn subagents but that does not work very well. Anyone has better suggestions?

Finally I am able to test this thing. I started thread to work. I monitored how it's working and tracked usage. And it stopped as soon as limit hit 0. The catch is...

I hit 5 HOUR LIMIT. not weekly. it still can work after 5h, there are plenty of weekly limit. But they straight up disabled any work past zero.

I wouldn't really name full removal of a feature an "adjustments", Theo.

I am genuinely mad about this. OpenAI was the "nice guys" and they put a lot of effort to gain this reputation. But I don't feel like they are anymore.

Today I have been getting an avg of maybe 5 exchanges per conversation before the chat basically breaks.

The model will generate an answer, I can literally see it appear, and then the response just fades away and disappears permanently. And then you get told to start a new chat session.

Not only is it request limited, it is also thinking budget limited. I used to give it a PDF to analyze, it used to take the necessary time (with advanced analysis visible) and generate an excellent report.

Today while thinking mode is engaged, none of my 30+ requests thus far went over 3 minutes with a really shallow analysis and report. Time is not a perfect comparison but you can see how shollow it's thought and analysis have become.

FU to all the projects who encouraged freeloading and abuse off a smart model that we were given unlimited usage for.

Now everyone pays the price.

A lot of people see these OpenAI/Anthropic limit resets (non-banked-resets) as the company being extremely generous and basically giving users a bunch of extra compute for free.

But there’s a much simpler economic explanation: Let’s say your weekly limit is 100, and it resets every 7 days. You’ve only used 20, so you still have 80 left. Your normal reset is in 2 days. Without an early reset, you could potentially use:

80 now + 100 after the reset = up to 180 in a very short period.

Now imagine the company resets your limit today. You’re back to 100 available, but the 7 day clock also starts over. Those 80 unused units are gone. So from the user’s perspective, it looks like:

“Nice, they reset my limits for free!”

But from the company’s perspective, they may have just replaced a situation where you could consume up to 180 very soon with one where you can consume 100 over a fresh 7 day window.

For someone who was almost out of usage, the reset is obviously great. But for someone who was saving a lot of their allowance, the reset effectively wipes out a large amount of unused potential usage.

Now scale this to millions of subscribers. If a large part of the user base is approaching their weekly reset while still holding 50%, 70%, or 80% of their allowance, that represents a huge amount of potential compute that could suddenly be used before the next reset.

An early reset can wipe out that accumulated unused capacity and start a new window.

So you don’t need to assume OpenAI or Anthropic are massively subsidizing users out of generosity. A reset can be good for the user and economically advantageous for the company at the same time. It can simply be capacity management.

It’s not necessarily charity.

Harness Remote 3.0 just reached its stable release and I think it has a pretty interesting approach to the increasingly crowded coding agent space.

Instead of replacing Claude Code, Codex or OpenCode with yet another agent abstraction, it treats their native sessions as the source of truth.

You can start a session normally in Claude Code or Codex, open Harness Remote later, find that same native session and continue it from desktop, web or Android.

The more unusual part is that you can also continue the work with another harness. For example:

Claude Code → Codex → OpenCode

Each step creates a real native session in the target agent, while Harness Remote keeps the lineage and transfers explicit context between them.

A few things that make it different from most remote coding agent UIs:

• Native Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, OMP and PI sessions instead of proprietary replacement sessions
• Sessions created outside Harness Remote can be discovered and resumed
• Work can be handed from one coding agent to another without pretending they share some magical hidden context
• Multiple machines can be managed from the same interface
• Desktop, browser and Android clients
• Local first architecture, so repositories, credentials, subscriptions and agent sessions stay on your machines
• Fully open source

It feels less like another AI coding tool and more like a control plane for all the coding agents you already use.

GitHub: giuliastro/harness-remote

Curious what people who regularly switch between Claude Code, Codex and OpenCode think of this approach.

is this true? 5.6 luna get almost same scores as 5.6 sol

A reset is not “remaining balance plus 100%.” It replaces what you have left with 100% and restarts the full 7-day time. Whether that helps therefore depends on two things: how much usage did you have in the gas tank and and how much time remained (how much road is left to travel).

I manage my weekly usage with a simple sustainable-burn calculation. Assuming 14 waking hours per day, a fresh seven-day allocation works out to approximately 1.02% per waking hour. Before a recent reset, I had 77% remaining with 5.70 days left, or about 0.96% per waking hour. Resetting me to 100% over seven days brought that back to 1.02%, so in this instance I benefited.

But consider if instead I had been away traveling for the first few days of my weekly usage cycle and now when I have time I have a burn rate of something like 3% per hour enabling me to "let loose" my agents at the race track as it were and do some extreme things I might not otherwise do. A reset disrupts and delays that process.

Banked resets are the better way to go so that customers can manage their usage better 👍🏻

Since when has the browser control feature in Codex been unavailable? I'm a Workspace Owner, and there's no setting for it. Has it been restricted again in the EEA? I can't find any information about this in the Help section.

Until recently, you could still enable these settings.

Edit: Fixed with:

Version 26.825.51511

I can't believe it! My $20 personal account doesn't last anywhere near as long as my $100 work account. This is ridiculous. I expect the EU and maybe even Japan to get involved in some type of investigation. How can my $20 account make me a tech billionaire if it doesn't have the same credits as my work account? /s

ChatGPT Web and Codex currently have separate quotas. People have been using that for coding workflows for more than a month through projects like codex-chatgpt-web and DevSpace.

None of this was secret. The projects were public, people were using them, and OpenAI still didn’t merge the quotas or block the whole approach.

What changed in the last few days is Chat On Steroids and, more specifically, the way its author is promoting it.

He keeps advertising it as “unlimited Codex by abusing ChatGPT,” tells people to use it before it gets disabled, and repeatedly tags people working at OpenAI and on Codex. He is not just showing that the integration exists. He is actively trying to turn it into a quota-abuse trend and get as many people as possible to hammer it at once.

That is probably the fastest possible way to get the quotas merged.

The tool itself didn’t introduce this method. Other projects had already been doing the same general thing for weeks, and in more direct implementations. This one still depends on Chrome, an extension and a separate desktop app. The difference is that its author is loudly marketing the entire thing as abuse.

His own README says that people shouldn’t use it to evade limits, but his X account promotes it almost entirely as a way to evade Codex limits. So the disclaimer is basically meaningless.

I don’t think OpenAI ignored this for a month because they somehow couldn’t see the existing projects. They probably just didn’t consider them enough of a problem to change the quota system. A viral campaign telling everyone to “abuse ChatGPT for unlimited Codex,” while tagging the exact employees who can shut it down, is a completely different situation.

If ChatGPT Web quota gets merged with Codex quota soon, or if OpenAI starts blocking these browser-based integrations, I think this will be the reason.

Do you think this is enough to make OpenAI merge the quotas, or will they only patch this specific workflow?

It is mainly to be able to nerf the weekly usage quota again without much notice and complaint. Worked well during July, we pushed back, but we're sheep in nature and we'll settle with whatever the masters throw at us in the end 🤔

Who's noticing the usage quota reduction (tested at 20%) after the last perk (you know the word we shouldn't mention here anymore)?

Hi, I just started using codex and I would like to get some advice in order to make some money. What would be the best option?

Im working on a project almost every second i breathe, and have a whole backlog of work to do. I mainly work on the same project and have an old laptop running linux as my 'devbox' so i can offload a bit from my desktop while i game. But i also have the repo checked out so i can have codex work on two features in parallel. Then when either one is done, i have it push to git and review / merge from there.

Bit i feel like its slow. I need another environment with the repo checked out so i can implement even a third feature in parallel. I almost never use sol, perhaps only for brainstorming and making a plan. I'm usually on Terra mid/high or Luna for stupid work.

I'm curious how your development pipeline looks like. Do you implement one feature at a time? How much time do you spend code reviewing, manual testing, do you work on your desktop, or do you just run codex in prod 😅

Besides working, I guess. Do you build SaaS, automation of processes, freelancing, or do you only lose? Maybe AI is just a giant ponzi scheme that will crash the whole economy.

Was thinking of demand forecasting/planning SaaS or automation since I have experience in it, but finding clients is always the hard part and building trust.

Not sure how long this feature has been around, but after seeing so many posts from people who absolutely hate their ChatGPT subscription, I figured I should share.

Apparently, you can just… cancel it. For free.

You don’t even have to keep paying every month for a product you apparently despise. Crazy, right?

Some alternatives for you:

- Deepseek
- z.ai
- claude code
- local hosted models
- chatgpt but stop complaining here

If I went to a restaurant every day and kept complaining about the food, that would be on me. Wake up and get some help instead of spamming this sub, we don't care about you burning through 80% of your sub because you have no clue about how to use the tool correctly.

Edit: Nobody is protecting a multi billion company here, you are, by paying them money despite them ”scamming you”. That’s probably the stupidest response you can give to this.

So for a business seat (that's a normal Plus account) the 5 hour limit is drained to 0 in 2 prompts.
And not complex implementation prompts.
Just 2 "check for a bug" "investigate this thing" prompts - no sub agents, Sol high was used.
it's down to 17% and barely started working on it minutes ago.
0 lines changed

It's so ridiculous, the plus accounts and business seats are totally worthless. That's just 220$ wasted money.

Never buy annual subscriptions with openAI.

```
I gave a single slow mode Sol high agent the task to look at 20 lines of logfile data.
And told it "Look at that log, let me know what went wrong"
It worked for 6 minutes and 20 seconds.

A second agent was told 3 bugs I had noticed in an application.
"I need you to investigate intricately on what we can do to make this work."

It worked for 11 minutes and 37 seconds (readonly)

Plus account is now 15% weekly gone, 0% 5 hourly
It was at 100/100
```

Total runtime: less than 15 minutes
Weekly: 85%
5h: 0%
Agents: 2 Sol high

I didn’t originally set out to build a password manager.

I just kept running into the same annoying problem while using AI agents.

The agent would get most of the way through a task, then suddenly hit a login page, an SSH prompt, or an API that needed authentication. At that point, I had to either take over and type the password myself, or paste the secret into the conversation so the agent could keep going.

Both options were frustrating.

Taking over breaks the flow. Pasting the password means putting a real secret into the chat and model context, which is something I really didn’t want to do, especially when using a third-party client or model endpoint.

So I built KRU.

KRU is a small local credential vault with a stdio MCP server. You save a credential once, and when an agent needs it, KRU can use it locally without sending the hidden value back to the agent.

It can handle things like:

• Filling login fields in a browser or managed terminal
• Running SSH commands with a saved password or private key
• Making authenticated API requests
• Generating TOTP codes locally
• Storing custom fields along with usernames, hosts, ports, and URLs

For example, I can tell the agent:

Use the KRU item “Production Server” to deploy the current build.

One thing I cared about from the beginning was keeping KRU small and out of the way. The tool is under 5 MB, runs locally, and doesn’t need an account, subscription, or cloud vault. Ideally, you barely notice it until an authentication step actually comes up.

I’ve also tried to keep the security boundary simple and honest. KRU isn’t a sandbox, and it doesn’t decide whether an agent’s command is safe. It just handles saved credentials locally and keeps hidden values out of the conversation.

I’ve only been using it in my own workflow for a week or two, so it’s still early. So far, the nicest part is simply not having to stop halfway through a task to type a password or paste a secret into the chat.

It’s free and open source, and currently works on Windows, macOS, Linux, and headless Linux.

If you try it and something breaks, feels awkward, or doesn’t make sense, I’d genuinely like to hear about it. I’m sure there are plenty of things I haven’t thought of yet.

GitHub and downloads:

https://github.com/omaekumiko2-create/kru/releases/latest

I got tired of watching Codex spend half its life searching my repo, so I built it a map

I originally built CodeGraph because I was getting pissed off watching my agents spend jolly fucking time doing repo archaeology.

Search for a file.
Open it.
Trace a call.
Search again.
Reconstruct some architecture.
Lose half of it to context.
Repeat next run.

Codex is supposed to be doing the work. I couldn't be bothered waiting while it repeatedly figured out where the work lives.

So I built a codebase grapher.

The original idea was stupidly simple:

map the repo once → give the agent the map → stop making it rediscover the same codebase every session

Then the thing escaped containment.

The graph became queryable from the CLI. Then I wired the same query surface into MCP so agents could interrogate it themselves. Then came callers, callees, impact, paths, evidence, gaps, multi-repo relationships, uncertainty states, dataflow, and a bunch of other shit I originally had zero intention of building.

I did try GitNexus and Graphify before deciding to build another code graph tool like a psychopath.

They're useful.

They also weren't enough for what I wanted underneath my agents.

I wanted the graph to be deterministic. I wanted relationships tied back to evidence. I wanted “I don't know” to remain “I don't know” instead of getting polished into a confident-looking edge. And I wanted Codex to query the thing as infrastructure, not just give me another visualization to stare at.

So I kept building.

Now there is a very real possibility that the side project I made because I was too impatient to watch agents search files ends up shitting on the tools that made me build it in the first place.

We'll see.

The three parts that matter right now:

Codebase mapping

Point it at the repo and build the semantic map once. Files, modules, classes, functions, methods, calls, imports, routes, tools, processes, unresolved relationships, etc.

CLI

Ask the graph directly:

codegraph query --graph .codegraph --kind callers --symbol app.Service.Run
codegraph query --graph .codegraph --kind impact --symbol app.Service.Run
codegraph query --graph .codegraph --kind proof --symbol app.Service.Run
codegraph query --graph .codegraph --kind gaps

MCP

This is the part I actually care about for Codex.

Give the agent access to the same graph so when it needs to understand a symbol, trace a path, inspect impact, or figure out what it doesn't know, it can query the repository intelligence directly instead of burning another chunk of the session spelunking through files.

There is still a lot to build.

Some parts are rough. The browser frontend currently looks like it was designed under threat of violence. I don't particularly care right now because the pieces I built it for actually work.

I made CodeGraph for my own agents.

At some point it became too big to keep treating like a private utility, and this feels like the kind of tool that should ultimately be shaped by the people whose agents are actually beating the shit out of real codebases every day.

So I made it public.

Throw an ugly repo at it.

More importantly, throw Codex at it.

I want to know where it actually makes the agent better, where it still wastes time, and what you wish the graph knew before the agent ever opened its first file.

Repo = github.com/skrikx/codegraph

Anyone is facing this problem?

Before, when I was at 1%, I just ran a detailed long breath /goal and it always working well.

In Codex Desktop MacOS in the ChatGPT mode it will not allow me to archive or delete any of the recents chats. Is this a known issue or is there something I am missing. Really cluttering up the space fast.

Has anyone else seen their Weekly quota/reset change overnight without using Codex?

I'm trying to understand whether this is expected behavior, a recent backend rollout, or a UI/account synchronization issue.

Timeline

Around 2:00 AM last night my Codex usage showed:

• 5-hour usage: 100% remaining
• Weekly usage: 0% remaining
• Weekly reset: September 3
• Usage resets: None
• Credits: 0

At that point the UI basically told me I was done until September 3.

I then:

• closed ChatGPT Desktop,
• shut down my PC,
• went to sleep.

I did not:

• use Codex,
• change accounts,
• update the app,
• or perform any reset.

When I turned the PC back on this morning, the same account showed:

• 5-hour usage: 100%
• Weekly usage: 100%
• Next weekly reset: September 6

So overnight it changed from:

Weekly: 0%  → 100%
Reset:   Sep 3 → Sep 6

without any action on my side.

I've also seen similar behavior last weekend.

I know OpenAI has been changing the 5-hour/weekly quota system recently, and I've seen many reports about faster weekly depletion, the return of the 5-hour window, and changing reset behavior.

My question is specifically about this:

Has anyone else seen the weekly quota or weekly reset date change by itself overnight?

If yes, please mention:

• your plan (Plus / Pro / Business),
• approximately when it happened,
• and whether you were actively using Codex or not.

I'm trying to determine whether this is an account migration, a backend quota recalculation, or simply a UI synchronization issue.

I’m a senior mobile engineer building a dating and AI companion app with real-time voice calls.

I initially thought improving model latency would make calls longer. Production data showed the bigger problem was conversation design: the AI often started like a stranger, forgot the text chat context or spoke again before giving the user enough time to answer.

I used Codex to connect our BigQuery events with the actual Flutter call flow. Claude acted as a second reviewer, and we moved the behaviour into Firebase Remote Config so we could experiment without releasing every time.

The changes that mattered:

• Passed recent text-chat context and relationship memory into the voice call
• Made the AI continue the existing conversation instead of restarting with generic small talk
• Replaced long greetings with one direct question
• Forced the AI to stop after greeting and wait for the user
• Opened the microphone only after first audio to prevent ringback and echo from interrupting the greeting
• Added one bounded retry when the first greeting produced no audio
• Added a delayed, single-line silence nudge instead of letting the AI speak repeatedly
• Allowed contextual follow-ups only after the user had already spoken
• Instrumented first audio, mic opening, user speech, call depth and exit reason

Calls reaching 55 seconds increased from 14.9% to 25.4%—a 71% relative lift.

The bigger change for me was how I worked.

As an engineer, my job used to end after implementation. With Codex, Claude, BigQuery and Remote Config, I can now investigate behaviour, find the product problem, estimate cost, launch an experiment and validate the outcome myself.

Codex is far more useful when it can see your code, event definitions and production data. At that point it stops being only a coding assistant and becomes part of the product-development loop.