Skip to content

Category: Codex

6 min read Claude, Codex, The Art of Vibe Coding, Vibe Coding

The Codex-Claude Code Workflow: How I Plan With GPT-5 and Execute With Claude Code

I used to dive straight into Claude Code’s Plan Mode and ask it to build features.

Sometimes it worked brilliantly – Claude would research, plan, and implement perfectly. Other times, despite Plan Mode’s capabilities, it built something that technically worked but wasn’t quite what I had in mind.

The problem?

Even with Plan Mode, I wasn’t always giving Claude Code enough context about my specific requirements.

I was expecting it to infer implementation details, UI decisions, and edge cases from a brief description.

Then I discovered a game-changing workflow: Use Codex to plan meticulously, then Claude Code to execute flawlessly.

Let me show you exactly how this works with a real example – adding a context menu to rename and delete chat sessions in my YouTube AI app.

.

.

.

The Magic Is In The Questions

Here’s the breakthrough:

Instead of jumping straight into implementation, I start by having Codex ask me clarifying questions until it’s 95% confident it can create a perfect plan.

This brilliant approach comes from Sabrina Ramonov’s YouTube video “3 ChatGPT Prompts That Feel Like Millionaire Cheat Codes”.

I’ve refined her prompt to work perfectly with Codex for feature planning.

.

.

.

Step 1: Start With Questions, Not Code

I begin with this carefully crafted prompt to Codex:

In the Chat sidebar, I want to add context menu for user to rename the session as well as deleting the session.

Help me come up with a plan to implement this. DON'T WRITE OR EDIT ANY FILES.

Ask me clarifying questions until you are 95% confident you can complete this task successfully.

a. If the question is about choosing different options, please provide me with a list of options to choose from. Mark the option with a clear label, like a, b, c, etc.
b. If the question need custom input that is not in the list of options, please ask me to provide the custom input.

The key elements here:

  • DON’T WRITE OR EDIT ANY FILES – This keeps Codex focused on planning
  • 95% confidence threshold – Forces thorough understanding before proceeding
  • Structured options – Makes decision-making faster and reveals possibilities I hadn’t considered
Original state of the chat sidebar without context menu
Initial prompt to Codex asking for the plan

.

.

.

Step 2: The Clarifying Questions Phase

This is where the magic happens. Codex doesn’t just ask random questions – it systematically explores every aspect of the feature:

Codex presenting its first round of clarifying questions with options

Notice how Codex provides options for each decision:

  • Rename UI: Dialog with text input, inline edit, or popover
  • Delete confirmation: AlertDialog, no confirmation, or typing “DELETE”
  • Mobile behavior: Different menu types or desktop-only
  • Post-action behavior: Keep selection, reset, or select next

I can quickly pick options without having to type lengthy explanations:

My responses to Codex's questions using the option labels

But Codex doesn’t stop there. It asks follow-up questions to refine the details:

Codex asking additional clarifying questions

Questions about:

  • Handling duplicate titles
  • Whitespace validation
  • Button visibility
  • Delete confirmation text
  • Test IDs for E2E testing

I continue answering:

My responses to the additional questions

.

.

.

Want techniques like these weekly?

Join The Art of Vibe Coding—short, practical emails on shipping with AI (without the chaos).

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Step 3: The Comprehensive Plan

After gathering all requirements, Codex produces a detailed implementation plan:

Codex's final comprehensive plan with all implementation details - Parts 1 of 4
Codex's final comprehensive plan with all implementation details - Parts 2 of 4
Codex's final comprehensive plan with all implementation details - Parts 3 of 4
Codex's final comprehensive plan with all implementation details - Parts 4 of 4

The plan is incredibly thorough, covering:

Backend Architecture:

  • PATCH and DELETE routes with exact endpoints (/api/chat/sessions/:sessionId)
  • Specific HTTP status codes (200, 204, 401, 404)
  • Storage interface methods with complete signatures
  • MemStorage and PostgreSQLStorage implementation details
  • Ownership verification and cascade deletion logic

Client-Side Implementation:

  • useChat hook extensions with renameSessionMutation and deleteSessionMutation
  • Cache invalidation strategies
  • Toast feedback for success/error states
  • Context state management

UI Components:

  • ContextMenu wrapper with ContextMenuTrigger
  • Always-visible “…” actions button with DropdownMenu
  • Dialog components with specific state management
  • Input validation rules (trim, non-empty, allow duplicates)
  • Loading states that disable actions during pending operations

UX Specifications:

  • Left-click for selection, right-click for actions
  • Mobile-first “…” button approach
  • Preserved updatedAt timestamps during rename
  • Session order stability
  • Sidebar sheet behavior (no auto-close on dialog open)

Testing Infrastructure:

  • Comprehensive test IDs for E2E testing
  • API contract examples with request/response formats
  • Testing checklist with specific scenarios

This isn’t just a vague outline – it’s a blueprint that any developer could follow.

.

.

.

Step 4: From Plan to Implementation

Now comes the handoff. I copy Codex’s plan and paste it directly into Claude Code:

Copying the plan from Codex and pasting into Claude Code

Claude Code immediately understands the comprehensive plan:

Claude Code acknowledging and analyzing the plan

Watch as Claude Code systematically implements each part of the plan:

Claude Code examining the existing codebase structure
Claude Code making the necessary changes to implement the features

The implementation is surgical and precise – Claude Code knows exactly what to build because the plan is so detailed:

Claude Code's completion message showing successful implementation
The working context menu with rename and delete options

.

.

.

Step 5: The Review Loop

But we’re not done yet. This is where the workflow truly shines.

I take the git diff from Claude Code’s implementation and ask Codex to review it:

Please read the git diff, analyze the implementation and check if everything is implemented as per advised.

DON'T WRITE OR EDIT ANY FILES.
Asking Codex to review the implementation

Codex meticulously reviews every change:

Codex's detailed review findings

In this case, Codex found two deviations from the agreed plan:

  1. Timestamp updates during rename (should be preserved)
  2. Button visibility on desktop (had unnecessary opacity classes)

.

.

.

Want techniques like these weekly?

Join The Art of Vibe Coding—short, practical emails on shipping with AI (without the chaos).

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Step 6: Refinement Based on Feedback

I copy Codex’s feedback back to Claude Code:

Providing Codex's feedback to Claude Code

Claude Code immediately understands and implements the corrections:

Claude Code implementing the fixes
Claude Code confirming all fixes are complete

The final result?

A perfectly implemented feature that matches the original specifications exactly:

Final working implementation with all refinements

.

.

.

Why This Workflow Is Revolutionary

1. Thinking Before Coding

By forcing myself to answer Codex’s questions, I’m thinking through edge cases and implementation details BEFORE any code is written.

This prevents the “oh wait, what about…” moments during development.

2. Leveraging Strengths

  • Codex excels at: Analysis, planning, asking the right questions, and meticulous review
  • Claude Code excels at: Understanding context, implementing complex features, and following detailed plans

3. Faster Development

Counter-intuitively, spending 10 minutes on planning saves hours of refactoring.

The implementation is right the first time.

4. Better Code Quality

The review loop catches issues that might slip through.

Having Codex review Claude Code’s work is like having a senior developer review every PR.

5. Learning Through Questions

Codex’s questions often reveal considerations I hadn’t thought of.

“Should duplicate titles be allowed?”
“What happens to the selection after delete?”

These questions make me a better developer.

.

.

.

The Prompt That Makes It Work

The secret sauce is in the prompt structure. By combining:

  • Clear feature description
  • Explicit “don’t code” instruction
  • 95% confidence threshold (credit to Sabrina Ramonov)
  • Structured option format

We transform Codex from a code generator into a thoughtful architect who ensures every detail is considered before implementation begins.

.

.

.

Your Next Feature

Try this workflow on your next feature:

  1. Start with Codex – Use the clarifying questions prompt
  2. Answer thoughtfully – Pick from options or provide custom input
  3. Get the plan – Let Codex create a comprehensive blueprint
  4. Implement with Claude Code – Copy the plan and watch it build
  5. Review with Codex – Check the implementation against the plan
  6. Refine with Claude Code – Apply any feedback from the review

This isn’t just about building features faster. It’s about building them right the first time.

While the context menu might seem like a simple example, this same workflow scales beautifully to complex features. Whether you’re building authentication systems, real-time collaboration, or intricate data visualizations – the pattern of meticulous planning with Codex followed by precise execution with Claude Code ensures success every time.

What feature will you plan with Codex and build with Claude Code?


P.S. – The combination of Codex’s analytical planning and Claude Code’s implementation prowess has transformed how I develop. No more half-baked features or forgotten edge cases. Just clean, well-planned, thoroughly reviewed code.

7 min read The Art of Vibe Coding, Claude, Codex, GPT-5, Vibe Coding

Claude Code vs Codex: Why I Use Both (And You Should Too)

Everyone’s asking “Claude Code vs Codex – which one should I use?”

You’re asking the wrong question.

After tons of testing Claude Code vs Codex head-to-head, I discovered something game-changing: they’re not competitors, they’re the perfect team.

  • Claude Code builds brilliantly,
  • Codex reviews meticulously, and
  • Together they create code that’s both powerful and bulletproof.

Let me show you exactly how this works with a real example from my WordPress theme.

.

.

.

Claude Code vs Codex: The Problem With Choosing Just One

Codex (GPT-5 High) Alone: Minimal to a Fault

Ask Codex to build something from scratch, and you’ll get code that works… technically.

But it’s like asking for a house and getting a tent.

Sure, it provides shelter, but is that really what you wanted?

In the Claude Code vs Codex comparison, Codex’s minimalism means:

  • Basic functionality only
  • No edge case handling
  • Missing quality-of-life features
  • Requires significant enhancement

Claude Code Alone: The Over-Engineering Trap

Claude Code (especially Opus 4.1) goes the opposite direction.

Ask for a simple feature, and it builds you a spacecraft.

The code becomes so complex that even Claude loses track of what it created.

The over-engineering pattern:

  • Abstract factories for simple functions
  • Unnecessary design patterns
  • 20 files when 3 would suffice
  • Complexity that breeds bugs

.

.

.

Claude Code vs Codex: The Solution is Both

After extensive testing of Claude Code vs Codex in production environments, here’s the breakthrough: Use Claude Code to build, then Codex to review.

When comparing Claude Code vs Codex strengths:

Claude Code excels at:

  • Understanding requirements
  • Creating comprehensive implementations
  • Handling complex integrations
  • Building from scratch

GPT-5 (Codex) excels at:

  • Finding security vulnerabilities
  • Catching inconsistencies
  • Identifying missing edge cases
  • Suggesting surgical improvements

Together, they’re unstoppable.

.

.

.

Real-World Example: Claude Code + Codex in Action

Let me walk you through exactly how Claude Code + Codex work together on a real feature – adding a newsletter subscription shortcode to my WordPress theme.

Phase 1: Claude Code Implementation

I asked Claude Code to do two things:

  1. Create a newsletter subscribe form shortcode
  2. Add a guide tab in the theme options to show users how to use this shortcode

Here’s my original prompt:

Screenshot showing the original prompt to Claude Code about injecting subscribe form via shortcode and creating a guide tab

Claude Code immediately understood the context and used a sub-agent to explore the codebase:

Screenshot showing Claude Code’s thinking process and planning the implementation

After investigation, Claude successfully implemented both the shortcode and the guide tab:

Screenshot showing Claude Code’s successful completion message with all implemented features

The initial implementation included:

  • ✅ Newsletter subscribe form shortcode
  • ✅ Guide tab added to Theme Options
  • ✅ Advanced template system with 6 visual styles
  • ✅ Comprehensive documentation for users
  • ✅ Integration features with FluentCRM
  • ✅ Best practices and placement recommendations
Screenshot showing the initial newsletter subscription form - functional but needs refinement

Phase 2: Codex Review

This is where the magic happens.

I took Claude Code’s implementation and gave it to Codex for review:

Screenshot showing how I provided the implementation summary from Claude Code along with my prompt asking Codex to “Read the git diff and analyze if the implementation is correct”

My exact prompt to Codex was simple: “Read the git diff and analyze if the implementation is correct. Attached is how the subscribe form looks like.”

Codex immediately went into detective mode:

Screenshot showing Codex starting its review process - “I’ll inspect the git diff and scan the theme files

Codex immediately went into detective mode, analyzing every aspect:

Screenshot showing Codex’s detailed analysis process - searching for nonces, analyzing functionality
Screenshot showing Codex continuing analysis - checking shortcode usage, examining CSS classes

The Meticulous Review Results

After thorough analysis, Codex identified several critical issues that Claude Code missed:

Screenshot showing Codex’s comprehensive findings

What Codex Found:

  1. Security Gap: The shortcode form lacked nonce and honeypot protection
    • No wp_nonce_field in the shortcode form
    • Template had security features, but shortcode didn’t use them
  2. Integration Issues:
    • Shortcode posted to wrong endpoint
    • AJAX handler expected different parameters
    • JS selector wouldn’t catch all form variants
  3. Documentation Mismatches:
    • PHP usage example was incorrect
    • Guide showed wrong template path syntax
    • Style parameter documentation was misleading
  4. Small but Important Details:
    • Footer template had a stray “◆” character instead of proper close icon
    • Hidden context field missing for non-JS submissions
Screenshot showing Codex’s detailed recommended fixes

Want techniques like these weekly?

Join The Art of Vibe Coding—short, practical emails on shipping with AI (without the chaos).

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Phase 3: Applying the Fixes (With a Twist)

Here’s where I made an interesting choice.

Instead of taking Codex’s recommendations back to Claude Code, I asked Codex itself to apply the fixes:

Screenshot showing me requesting “Yes, please apply all the fixes”

Why did I choose Codex over Claude Code for the fixes?

I wanted to test if Codex could handle implementation as well as review.

Spoiler: it absolutely can.

Codex methodically applied each improvement:

Screenshot showing Codex’s completion summary - “Applied the fixes across shortcode, JS, template, and Guide tab”
Screenshot showing detailed list of all changes Codex made
Screenshot showing the 4 files changed with specific line counts

Note: You could absolutely ask Claude Code to apply these fixes instead. Both approaches work. The choice depends on your workflow preference and which tool already has the most context about your specific requirements.

The Final Result

The difference was night and day:

Before Codex Review:

Screenshot of initial basic form

After Codex Review:

Screenshot of final polished form with all improvements

The final implementation now included:

  • ✅ Full security with nonce + honeypot
  • ✅ Proper AJAX/REST integration
  • ✅ Consistent styling across all contexts
  • ✅ Accurate documentation
  • ✅ Clean UI with proper icons
  • ✅ Hidden context field for fallback

.

.

.

The Workflow That Changes Everything

Here’s my exact process:

Step 1: Initial Implementation with Claude Code

"Build [feature] following our project rules"

Let Claude Code do what it does best – create comprehensive implementations.

Step 2: Export for Review

Generate a git diff or summary of changes. Include:

  • The implementation code
  • Any UI screenshots
  • The intended functionality

Step 3: Codex Review

"Review this implementation for security, consistency, and correctness.
Attached is [git diff/code/screenshots]"

Watch as Codex finds issues you never would have caught.

Step 4: Apply Improvements (Two Options)

Option A: Ask Claude Code to apply the fixes

"Apply these recommended fixes: [Codex's feedback]"

Claude Code implements the improvements with full context of the original implementation.

Option B: Ask Codex to apply the fixes directly

"Yes, please apply all the fixes"

Codex can handle both review AND implementation – as I demonstrated in this example.

Both approaches work.

Choose based on:

  • Which tool has more context about your requirements
  • Your comfort level with each tool
  • The complexity of the fixes needed

.

.

.

Why Claude Code & Codex Together Works So Well

Complementary Strengths

The Claude Code vs Codex combination leverages what each does best:

Claude Code brings:

  • Creative problem-solving
  • Comprehensive implementations
  • Deep context understanding
  • Rapid development

Codex brings:

  • Meticulous attention to detail
  • Security vulnerability detection
  • Consistency checking
  • Edge case identification

.

.

.

Pro Tips for Maximum Effectiveness

1. Let Claude Code Explorer First

Always use Claude Code’s codebase-explorer agent for initial investigation.

It understands context better than starting fresh.

2. Be Specific with Codex

Don’t just say “review this.” Say:

  • “Check for security vulnerabilities”
  • “Verify integration points”
  • “Validate documentation accuracy”

3. Screenshot Everything

Visual proof helps both AIs understand what you’re building.

4. Don’t Skip the Review

Even if Claude Code’s implementation seems perfect, run it through Codex.

Those “small” issues compound into big problems.

5. Keep the Feedback Loop Tight

Apply fixes immediately while context is fresh.

Don’t let reviews pile up.

.

.

.

The Bottom Line: Claude Code vs Codex is the Wrong Question

Stop treating Claude Code vs Codex as an either/or decision.

Start using them as collaborators.

The Claude Code vs Codex debate misses the point entirely.

They’re not competitors fighting for your attention – they’re complementary tools that achieve greatness together.

Claude Code is your brilliant architect who designs and builds. Codex is your meticulous inspector who ensures everything is perfect.

Together, they don’t just write code – they craft production-ready solutions that are secure, consistent, and maintainable.

My newsletter shortcode went from “it works” to “it’s bulletproof” in one review cycle.

That’s the power of using the right tool for the right job.

Your next feature deserves both the creativity of Claude Code and the precision of Codex. Why settle for less?


P.S. – This workflow has become so essential that I now budget time for both implementation and review in every feature. The 30 minutes spent on review saves hours of debugging later. Try it on your next feature and see the difference.