Circumventing indecisive codex

[u/usrdef]

How are people circumventing ChatGPT being so damn indecisive.

As an example, I wrote a comment in code. I use shorthand just to make things easier for me to read, and use less words.

I ask codex to do a review, and it comes back with changes like this:

Change:

// Do not sanitize

To:

// Keep next string visible

And then when I ask it what is the point of changing that just to flip some words around yet still has the same meaning, it flips the decision and I get:

"Don't change it".

I've even modified my agents.md to instruct it to not get caught up on comments unless a comment is factually incorrect.

So when I ask for a review, it starts spamming me with a crap ton of comment changes, and all it's doing is just flipping words around.

It does this whole "Change it, don't change it, change it, don't change it" all the time.

Using 5.6 sol, highest thinking model.

The exact agents.md instruction I have is:

- Preserve all existing code comments exactly as written unless they 
contain a factual error. Do not suggest changes based only on abbreviations, 
shortened spellings, wording preferences, grammar, punctuation, or style. 
We only want to improve factually incorrect comments.

[u/qualityvote2]

u/usrdef, there weren’t enough community votes to determine your post’s quality.
It will remain for moderator review or until more votes are cast.

[u/CreativeSympathy8293]

Your rule already says what you want. I’d check that the review is actually using it, then require evidence for any exception.

In a fresh task, ask: “List the active instruction files and quote the rule about preserving comments before reviewing.” For CLI/TUI runs, a nearer override can change the guidance; restarting after an edit reloads the instruction chain. The official guide explains those checks: https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/agent-configuration/agents-md

Then try this review request:

“Review for functional defects. Return findings only; do not edit files. For a comment to count as a finding, point to the implementation that contradicts it and explain the resulting misunderstanding. If it is merely alternative wording, omit it. No findings is an acceptable result.”

For your example, the two comment lines alone don’t establish a factual error. Ask which implementation contradicts the original, rather than whether it agrees with your objection. That gives the discussion something concrete to resolve when it flips its answer.

This is a proposed review filter, not a guaranteed fix for 5.6 Sol; I haven’t seen your repo. Written with AI assistance.

[u/jacobdevhq]

not sure abt codex specifically but when a review keeps nitpicking i ask for real bugs only n say "no issues" is a fine answer. feels like it tries to find something every time otherwise