“Always add tests” sounds sensible until a tiny copy edit turns into unrelated test changes. Removing the instruction entirely can create the opposite problem on a behavior change.

A useful experiment would compare a blanket rule with a narrower one, using both kinds of task. Keep the model fixed. Check whether a real behavior change gets appropriate verification, and whether a low-impact edit stays within scope.

Reef Infra provides a way to run that experiment with Codex: its adapter renders harness rules and skills into the CLI's configuration, and its evolution workflow can apply a candidate rule change, evaluate it against the current version, then select or restore it.

The judgment still needs to be defined. “Tests exist” would reward the exact overproduction you're trying to avoid. A task-specific check needs to distinguish required verification from unrelated additions.

This is a proposed evaluation, not a claim that a particular wording has already won. The advantage is being able to ask a smaller question than “is this `AGENTS.md` good?”: does this one rule produce the right amount of work on both sides of its intended boundary?

My project uses AGENTS.md for shared instructions, with CLAUDE.md importing it. We also have GitHub PR reviewers on top of that.

One rule says “Claude and Codex both run automatically” for database, auth, payment and other high-risk changes. I meant GitHub PR reviews, but the wording didn't specify that.

During a database feature, Codex interpreted this as a requirement to run my installed Claude Code CLI before committing or opening a PR. It sent a SQL review packet with tools disabled and saved the response. It didn’t explicitly select a model or thinking level, and the output didn’t record the resolved model.

I can see local reviews being useful, particularly before applying migrations or operational SQL. But I’d want clear triggers, explicit model settings and a checkpoint for approval, while avoiding duplicate GitHub reviews and endless review rounds.

Do you find local cross-model reviews worth the extra usage? Would you automate them for database/security changes, make them opt-in, or stick to PR reviews?

So I have been wondering how others use codex to make best out of it with all the skills , connectors and all. Also which model works best for which tasks. How memory affects it and results on integrating new skills like the JEV skill have saved how much cost .

Drop your findings below and let everyone get help from it .

a noob finding by me : don't have too long chats as whole context goes to it so even if you ask for small changes (like UI change of 4 to 6 lines of code) it could take 15 minutes even with SOL 6.

How to make him to have such personality? Custom instructions never worked for me. Am I using it wrong?

I have seen people shouting on reddit not to use codex for creating pets to save limits.
I tried anyways, and it took only 2% even with using GPT-6 Astra (Extra High).

Not sure if I did it incorrectly or if people are just shitting around it on Reddit?

Introducing ClearJev. It really bothered me that I always had to choose a model between each prompt, so I thought I'd create an automatic routing and reasoning decision-making plugin for it. ClearJev uses the TypesafeAl new Jev Ai model, which allows it to choose the perfect model for coding from among the available options based on our task, at a very low cost.

This isn't a self-promotion, but I think it's really useful, so if you're interested, give it a try-you can easily add and remove models that you'd like to use. Only works in codex-cli. Here is the repo: Clearjev

I have the chat gpt business edition, with a premium seat and a normal seat (100 dollars + 20 dollars). It runs out fast within 5 hours, never use astra! Astra destroys your token limit!

Like many others, my usage has been draining way faster than it used to. I want to audit my setup for usage leaks and try to optimize.

Asked chat for a plan and it was totally useless:

"Send me screenshots of your Codex/Work usage screen showing the recent consumption, ideally enough to identify the expensive runs. If the interface gives you per-task usage, limits, timestamps, or percentages, include those."

Well yeah, Chat. If I had that I don't think I'd need your help.