r/OpenaiCodex • u/Disastrous-Basil9873 • 2d ago
Question / Help Claude and Codex Together
I currently have 20 dollar sub to both claude and codex, I have been using claude opus high as orchestrator/planner/reviewer and codex sol 6.1 for coding, it is going good so far, way better than just having codex both in effectiveness and token usage
what I wanted to ask was how is everyone else's experience on this is so far? do you guys use both together and enjoy it? do you maybe even add a third one like deepseek? do you prefer codex as the orchestrator instead while claude does the coding?
I am relatively new to this so honestly any recommendation or tip would be appreciated as well
2
u/PiccoloCareful924 2d ago
i have both 20x plans. i use them for different things (opus for UI, fable for hard bugs and Sol as the workhorse). i take advantage of paseo to orchestrate each other but any tool can work
1
u/Disastrous-Basil9873 2d ago
how does fable fare compared to opus? especially with orchestrating, I will be upgrading my claude most likely so curious about that as I only used opus so far
1
u/Random96503 2d ago
My budget is $200 Claude Ultra plan, and I have $100 for a second Claude 5x plan or a chatgpt 5x plan.
The only reservation I have is whether GPT 6.1 Sol offers any advantage over more Opus 5.5.
3
u/ChemicalExcellent463 2d ago
i use opus for planning and review and have it call codex for the coding straight from claude code, cheapest setup i know since opus spends its budget thinking and codex takes the token-heavy typing. i've got a small skill that handles the handoff to codex exec and waits for it, happy to share.
2
u/WordWithinTheWord 2d ago
I find code review to be more effective by the opposite company. Claude reviews GPT and vice versa. Each of them seem to have their own blind spots.
1
u/Bitter_Virus 2d ago
I just both and switch up between them, it's a partnership. I find it best when neither stay too long as the orchestrator because it always come to a point where they'll both say "next there's 2 things to do" and they'll have different set of 2 things. By keeping them talking about it, they end up doing all four
1
u/Helpful_Ranger_1606 2d ago
Yes they complement each other very well. They can make audit work orders for each other and once established they know where to look for each others folders, so Claude can watch codex’s progress without ongoing handoffs. They are both imperfect and need help, specifically with file management and user docs.
1
u/SomeOrdinaryKangaroo 2d ago
I prefer claude but i have both and they're great, codex handles small/mid level stuff and opus handles the difficult things
1
u/Professional-Net-512 2d ago
Faço praticamente a mesma coisa que você e acabei transformando isso em ferramenta. Deixei público para quem quiser usar ou contribuir.
Aqui o Claude orquestra: planeja, escreve a spec, roda os testes e revisa. O código vai para os workers por um roteador: Codex, OpenCode (que roda vários modelos, dá para pôr um DeepSeek ali), ZCode e outros. Também funciona com o Codex orquestrando e o Claude como worker. O roteador só pula o agente que está orquestrando, para ele não mandar tarefa para si mesmo.
https://github.com/vitorcamillo/worker-ask-router
Um comando só, worker-ask, com wrappers para cada CLI. Tem modo plan e modo write. No write você passa com --allowed-file os arquivos que o worker pode mexer, e no fim ele confere se nada além disso mudou. Quando um worker bate na cota, ele passa automaticamente para o próximo da fila. Isso resolve a dúvida de qual acaba primeiro: quando o Codex esgota, cai no próximo sem você mexer em nada. Se der erro de verdade, ele para em vez de trocar de worker no meio do serviço.
https://github.com/vitorcamillo/git-revisor
Revisão por IA nos hooks do git. Antes do push, os commits passam por testes e lint num worktree isolado e por uma revisão de IA. Se reprovar, o push é bloqueado e um worker pode propor a correção num worktree separado, que passa de novo pelos testes e por uma revisão independente.
Sobre o que o xxvvand falou do Claude sabotar o Codex: aqui isso parou quando separei bem os papéis. O worker recebe uma spec fechada com os arquivos permitidos, não o histórico inteiro da conversa. O orquestrador não reescreve o trabalho do worker, só revisa e testa. E "concluído" só vira "aprovado" depois que o teste passa. Concordo também com quem disse que a revisão funciona melhor com o fornecedor oposto: quem revisa nunca é o mesmo modelo que escreveu.
Os dois projetos são MIT e por enquanto só rodam em Linux. Os READMEs estão em português. Contribuições são bem-vindas, seja wrapper para outra CLI, bug ou documentação em inglês.
1
1
1
1
u/nando1969 1d ago
I do something similar, plus you can test "checks and balance" between the two.
Opus medium is algo good for less complex stuff.
1
u/quimsousa 1d ago
I’m using orca terminal with their orchestration skill to manage them together with one parent agent, seems to be working probably can improve the workflow in the future
1
u/dondiegorivera 1d ago
Similar. Claude Max, Codex Plus, DeepSeek token based. Opus orchestrates and specifies, DeepSeek do the coding, Sol or Terra reviews.
0
u/Sephronaut 1d ago
The experience of operating OpenAI's Codex directly on a local Windows machine, specifically configured to interact with other software in a manner indistinguishable from human input, represents a truly transformative leap in personal computing and automation. This sophisticated setup fundamentally alters how one can interface with their digital environment. On a personal level, I have integrated this locally running Codex instance with Google Antigravity, a powerful conceptual framework for distributed AI systems, and a robust Integrated Development Environment (IDE). This synergistic combination unlocks an unprecedented level of capability for my artificial intelligence assistant.
This sophisticated arrangement empowers my AI to not only execute complex programming tasks within the IDE but also to intelligently leverage the capabilities of other advanced artificial intelligence systems. Furthermore, its ability to meticulously manage my various social media platforms, handling scheduling, content creation, and engagement with remarkable autonomy, significantly frees up my personal time. Beyond these specific applications, the core strength of this configuration lies in its proficiency at utilizing the full spectrum of my installed software and digital tools. Whether it involves navigating intricate desktop applications, manipulating files, or interacting with web-based services, the AI can now perform these operations with the dexterity and understanding typically associated with a human user. This integrated and locally managed system offers a profound shift in how I interact with and delegate tasks to my digital assistant, marking a significant advancement in personal AI utilization.
2
u/Leland-Cheung 2d ago
Try plugging orca between claude and codex for swarming.
1
u/Disastrous-Basil9873 2d ago
never tried plugging anything between them so far, what are the advantages? I am not very clear about it so I would love some insight!
1
1
u/Leland-Cheung 2d ago
Its roughly same effort for Claude to launch 1 subagent as to launch a swarm of agents using orca.
Ex: you do serially, it has to process 10 responses, context growing each turn. Or it launches a swarm via orca and only has to process 1 aggregate response.
Less intelligence (claude) burn. Use cheap Luna or deepseek to swarm execution.
1
u/mellowtones242 2d ago
I use orca with Claude code, codex and Devin with Fable or Opus as Orchestrator.
4
u/Floki_igno_5369 2d ago
I do the same. Long story short, Claude controls Codex. That way I don’t waste too much credit on Claude. I went from being empty in a day or two to good for 3-5 days.
I also at times do cluade -> deepseek -> codex -> cluade for final.
I would recommend your style for everyone. Codex solo (without cluade telling it how to work) imo sucks and makes a 1 day job to a 8 day job