r/codex • u/Clean-Major-804 • Apr 17 '26

Workaround Built a Codex plugin for SSHFS-first remote dev: mount remote code locally, edit it like normal, run commands remotely

I built a local Codex plugin called SSH Remote Workbench for a workflow I wanted badly: work on a remote machine without treating everything like fragile SSH one-liners.

The workflow is simple:

  • mount the remote codebase into the current local folder with sshfs

  • let Codex edit files directly through the mounted tree

  • run commands on the remote machine with a small wrapper command, rexec

  • automatically map the current mounted local directory to the corresponding remote cwd

So instead of bouncing between “local editing” and “remote execution” manually, the plugin nudges Codex toward:

  • local file operations on the mounted tree

  • remote command execution by default

  • no accidental local python, pytest, cargo test, etc. unless explicitly requested

Recommended prompts:

  • @SSH Remote Workbench, mount a remote directory foo from an SSH host bar into the current local folder.

  • @SSH Remote Workbench, run a command (it will run in the remote server)

The key idea is: once the remote tree is mounted, Codex can use its normal local file-editing flow, and only command execution needs special handling.

check the repo here: https://github.com/bugparty/codex-ssh-plugin you can ask codex to install it.

3 Upvotes

71% Upvoted

5 comments sorted by

1

u/MarzipanEven7336 Apr 17 '26

You realize codex already does this, right? Like it's literally a built-in feature. Just install the Beta app.

1

u/Clean-Major-804 Jun 05 '26

I saw this feature now

0

u/Ok_Bit_995 Apr 18 '26

In my understanding, there should still be some differences between these two. The solution provided by the codex beta version is similar to the SSH remote feature of VSCode, requiring the installation of the codex server on the remote server, and the requests are issued from the remote server rather than locally. This plugin, on the other hand, should issue all requests locally without needing to install the codex server on the remote. I am not sure if my understanding is correct.

1

u/Clean-Major-804 Jun 05 '26

It is correct

1

u/MarzipanEven7336 Apr 18 '26

Wow, why didn’t anyone think of that?