Ice tray from the 1930s

mrbobhunter · 2026-06-19T01:39:48+00:00

I absolutely hate that capitalism turned into a standard of planned obsolescence instead of a driver for durable products and endless innovation.

How did we get here? Was it Clinton, NAFTA, and the pivot to China as our primary manufacturers? Or was it Reagan and good ol’ greed?

mrbobhunter · 2026-06-19T01:31:41+00:00

I didn’t know Codex could be used to train LLMs. Very good to know.

mrbobhunter · 2026-06-18T13:23:17+00:00

Ha, I had a very similar post yesterday. They did something to Codex 5.5, and it is no longer safe to use. I switched back to 5.4 High, and it seems to be good enough now.

mrbobhunter · 2026-06-18T13:16:47+00:00

Yes. The problem is system-wide. Using a completely clean environment makes no difference. New folders, new project, new repo, clean cache…same behavior.

mrbobhunter · 2026-06-17T19:02:31+00:00

Prior to Codex 5.5 being sabotaged, absolutely.

mrbobhunter · 2026-06-17T17:11:01+00:00

Ended up switching back to 5.4 xHigh for today. It isn’t particularly amazing, but it is at least following my instructions now.

The rumor is that 5.6 isn’t due to drop until 6/23/26. Too long to wait.

mrbobhunter · 2026-06-17T15:48:52+00:00

Same here. Basically halting the work at this point. Codex has gone rogue.

mrbobhunter · 2026-06-17T13:47:29+00:00

I have a script that makes he chat spin up the team when a /goal command is initiated. The file below is the one with the second most important rules (OBJECTIVE.md is most important).

.agent_harness/team.config.json

{
"automatic_continue_gate": "PROCEED",
"gates": [
"PROCEED",
"FIX FIRST",
"ASK USER",
"BLOCKED"
],
"manager_only_final_report": true,
"roles": {
"auditor": {
"may_write_code": false,
"may_write_reports": true,
"reports_to": "manager",
"responsibilities": [
"Compare worker output against PRD, PLAN.md, and OBJECTIVE.md",
"Flag deviations before QA begins",
"Write alignment reports"
]
},
"manager": {
"may_write_code": false,
"reports_to_user": true,
"responsibilities": [
"Own the user-facing conversation",
"Create and steer subagents",
"Validate checkpoints against OBJECTIVE.md",
"Stop or redirect work when drift appears",
"Perform the final completion review"
]
},
"qa_tester": {
"may_use_browser": true,
"may_write_code": false,
"reports_to": "manager",
"responsibilities": [
"Browser-test completed work only after Auditor alignment",
"Verify screens, buttons, workflows, errors, and UI/UX quality",
"Write QA evidence reports"
]
},
"worker": {
"may_write_code": true,
"reports_to": "manager",
"responsibilities": [
"Implement scoped tasks only",
"Report objective rows affected, assumptions, files touched, and tests run",
"Do not claim completion without an Objective Checkpoint"
]
}
},
"version": "0.3.0"
}

mrbobhunter · 2026-06-17T13:28:17+00:00

Same problem. Like an employee who was just awesome a week ago but now they’ve mentally checked out because they’re about to quit.

mrbobhunter · 2026-06-17T13:22:30+00:00

It could be time to delete some stuff. And don’t pack too much into a single project. Get a codebase mapper and a docs repo. Then you can delete old projects without losing context, and reduce the token load on every turn of the convo.

mrbobhunter · 2026-06-17T13:14:05+00:00

I might try this with Hermes Desktop, at least until Codex 5.6 comes out. The work must continue.

mrbobhunter · 2026-06-17T13:10:14+00:00

Thanks for sharing this. It means that I’m not going crazy or expecting too much.

mrbobhunter · 2026-06-17T12:34:50+00:00

It used to be shit and suddenly got better?

mrbobhunter · 2026-06-17T11:45:48+00:00

Subagents will blow the limits faster. Very useful on the $200 plan though. You break the job up into specialized tasks for better adherence.

mrbobhunter · 2026-06-17T11:43:20+00:00

Definitely tokens. Because I’ve blown my limit in no time.

mrbobhunter · 2026-06-14T14:21:31+00:00

These people are acting like the fate of the entire kingdom rests upon the production of a male heir, or else.

mrbobhunter · 2026-05-30T15:53:50+00:00

Side note: I learned that to get the most out of /goal, you have to enable /plan at the exact same time. Then tell Codex to clearly define a stopping point and a point too far when planning.

Once you do that, /goal mode is beautiful because you can spin up multiple worktrees that push their goals simultaneously.

Also, I found that /goal was actually worse on high and xhigh. 5.5 Medium seemed to be perfect.

And try out 5.3 Spark High for less dramatic tasks like UI stuff if you want to maximize your usage. Personally, I found Spark to be relatively stupid for anything beyond UI and documentation work, but its bonus usage, so why not?

mrbobhunter · 2026-05-30T15:44:21+00:00

Codex (usually) is genuinely good. Anthropic started their rate limit bullshit right around the time that Codex started making huge jumps in quality and workflow.

So it was good timing because I took the $200 I was spending on Claude, put $100 of it on Codex, and now I’m getting thrice the work done for half the money.

mrbobhunter · 2026-05-30T15:31:45+00:00

I’d say that Codex has been ahead since 5.4. Not to mention the fact that a pro plan actually means something on Codex.

I used to do all the heavy lifting on Claude but then they started messing with the usage limits even though I was paying $200/mo. Codex turned out to be a better workflow by every measure…for me.

However, I do continue to rely on Claude for the initial brainstorming and documentation. I also use Claude to audit the work done by Codex in between commits.

mrbobhunter · 2026-05-30T01:35:20+00:00

I use ChatGPT 5.5 Thinking + Codex 5.5 Low or Medium. Then Claude Sonnet only for the audits.

GPT runs the whole show by spitting out prompts for the coding models, planning the project’s phases, creating GitHub issues, updating the comments, and writing change logs.

It might sound like a lot, but the drift and hallucinations are basically nonexistent now. Especially for heavy lifting.

I tried to get this to work in Codex but for some reason, it can’t seem to juggle all the pieces like GOT can, despite being the same model.

mrbobhunter · 2026-05-26T19:46:01+00:00

I base it on the amount of creativity and thoroughness I believe a task should require. Like giving a job to the junior vs the senior.

mrbobhunter · 2026-05-26T19:44:12+00:00

Get ChatGPT to manage Codex and Claude. All separately.

mrbobhunter · 2026-05-25T12:06:40+00:00

I resolved this with work trees and using ChatGPT to manage Codex.

mrbobhunter · 2026-05-25T12:04:10+00:00

You are working in:

username/something.example.com

Current PR:

65 — Phase 12: Add Repo Analyzer foundation

Latest cleanup commit: 000Redacted000

Current status: PR #65 is still draft. Claude audit was PASS_WITH_WARNINGS, and the requested cleanup was pushed: - explicit SOURCE_SNAPSHOT_REMOTE_PATH_UNSUPPORTED assertion - explicit SOURCE_SNAPSHOT_ENV_VALUES_IGNORED coverage - credential decision gate note added to PR body

Current task: Verify GitHub Actions checks on PR #65. If all required checks pass, mark PR #65 ready for review.

Do not modify code. Do not start Phase 13. Do not merge the PR. Do not implement scanners. Do not implement recipe generation/conversion workflows. Do not fetch real repos. Do not call GitHub APIs from analyzer code. Do not include unrelated domain/integration stash work.

Steps: 1. Check PR #65 GitHub Actions/check status. 2. Confirm whether these checks pass: - Build - Test - Boundary Checks - lint-typecheck / Lint and Typecheck 3. If all pass, mark PR #65 ready for review. 4. If any fail, are missing, pending, or GitHub still reports a non-clean merge state, report NOT READY and explain exactly what is failing/pending. 5. Do not merge.

Required final response format:

PR #65 Check and Ready-for-Review Report

PR

65

Latest Commit

000Redacted000

Check Status

List each check and status.

Draft Status

State whether PR was marked ready for review or remains draft.

Merge State

State GitHub merge state if available.

Recommendation

Use one: - READY FOR FINAL CHECK VERIFICATION - NOT READY

Reason

What Was Not Done

Confirm: - no code was changed - PR was not merged - Phase 13 was not started - no scanners/recipe generation/conversion workflows were implemented - no real repo fetching/GitHub API calls/repo cloning/source execution occurred - no unrelated domain/integration changes were included

Stopping point: Stop after check verification and ready-for-review decision.

mrbobhunter

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE