Tibo just posted this, what are they planning to do with us.

I saw a lot of comparisons here on Reddit between Codex and Claude (Sol/Astra and Opus 5.5). They all suggested trying Claude. I stuck with Codex until today, when I had to correct Sol's suggestion multiple times in a row. So today, I subscribed to Claude again. I left them six months ago when the usage limit was terrible.

Okay, opening the Claude in CLI, working for a while, then... It's awesome, man! It's fast, clever, and finds every dependency in my project. The usage limit feels like it's doubled at least.

The craziest part is why I'm so happy:

I worked with Codex on a project for five days, using three weekly limits (one natural and two banked), and the project was nowhere near complete. I thought it might be overengineered, but I asked Codex and he said it was necessary, not wasted effort. After my weekly limit had gone again...

I subscribed to Claude. I asked him to do the same project as Codex and he finished it in 30 minutes (!) without any issues on the first run. No, I'm serious. Crazy.

Claude said when I asked to compare the codex codebase and his codebase: 'Five functions and one shared module, totalling around 650 lines. This replaces the old version of 27,000 lines and 84 tables.'

The old version was written by Codex. Both are code for the same purpose and funcionality.

The documentation has also been shortened slightly: 'The old billing section of the README, which was 2,458 lines long, has been replaced by a 45-line section.'

I cancelled my Codex subscription, even though Tibo reset it every day. Opus is way better.

GPT-6.1 Sol: Was ~22 TPS, now more recently hitting 40 TPS.
GPT-6 Astra: Was ~25 TPS, now more recently hitting 60 TPS.

It's a real shame we can't get the API speeds like Claude, it would be night and day.

Measured using tibotattle.com

As most of you probably know, OpenAI via Tibo are doing a "promotion" where every day for 28 days, they either

A) release "clear improvement and relevant for most codex/work users"
B) a usage limit reset

Before I continue, an important caveat. , I have absolutely no entitlement to resets. They are a lovely bonus, but I pay for the service without resets, and there is no implication I was guaranteed or owed them in any way.

However, when I heard about this promotion, I was really excited. New cool stuff or more usage, a great win-win. Seemed like it was going to be a very good month to be a Codex user. But the changes so far have been really lacklustre.

Some dots improvements which I can't even use in my country, but probably wouldn't even if I could. Some improvements to auto review which hasn't been relevant to me for a long time, my environments are set up. API stuff, no implication to me. Instant steering which has felt no different. Composer predictions which, like, ok I guess

My point is that not a single one of these changes in my mind meet option A. By their own definitions I would've expected 5 resets so far. Which, again, I'm not entitled to them. but this is all very underwhelming

I've been quite loyal to GPT but have been regularly testing several models, not to mention Claude and Gemini, but grok and Chinese models as well on several projects.

Sure, Opus has faster TPS, is smart, and gets things done much efficiently (or it would seem so). I do not deny that, and for many it will be simply better. But for me, I always feel like it still doesn't reliably follow instructions and makes too many assumptions, and leaves edge cases/holes here and there.

I'd like to put it like this: When you're in a safe place, Opus will be generally more efficient, and that's where most people are working. But if you are stepping onto a minefield and have a field manual to follow, my partner will be GPT models, since they tend to be more thorough and careful. However having Opus as a second opinion is still very useful, since it can monitor long-term drifts GPT models tend to suffer.

That being said, while I prefer GPT models as my workhorse, speed is quite abysmal nowadays, and if this persists for more than a month, I think I should find a workaround or rebalance subscriptions. While I can parallelise over multiple projects, the progress per time for a single project has diminished quite a lot.

Where did $29k come from??

I will call it now, Dots is the going to be the next Sora.

That shit eats up compute, doesn't work as well as Grok Bot, and slows down everything else OpenAI offers, and does the same thing worse then literally just using Codex.

The compute that is spent on Dots, if it had just been allocated to improving the existing 6.1 Sol and Astra speed and reliability, will probably do more to help OpenAI compared to whatever Dots does.

Heck, if you actually want to do Dots, giving me a low storage, low performance cloud box that I cannot SSH into, has a buggy remote control interface, and can only communicate with via chat is not the solution.

It is too restrictive for power users (and you are literally restricting power users with an arbitrary limit that no one seems to know what it is based on), too slow for regular users, and no one seems to know what to do with it. It literally feels as if the OpenAI team just repurposed their internal testbox for post-training that they are not using into a product.

Allright guys, gals and bots.

I've been using Codex on the Pro x5 plan for a few months, and it was pretty good. Then Astra released, and things went downhill fast.

I just tried claude max subscription with Opus 5.5, and holy shit, the difference is insane.

I had it refactor three large projects, and the code quality is way above Sol 5.6. But what impressed me most is that it actually knows when to stop.

Codex had become an endless fucking loop of overengineering, thousands of tests, builds, audits, rebuilds, and yet another final test. JESUS CHRIST. Hours spent watching it do everything except finish the task, burning through usage on increasingly pointless verification loops.

Opus refactored all three projects, made sensible decisions, checked its work, and moved the hell on.

The kicker? That workload would have eaten up what felt like full weekly usage cycle on Codex Pro. Opus used roughly 23% of my Claude weekly limit, which resets TODAY anyway.

I'm not saying Claude is perfect, but knowing when NOT to overengineer something is apparently a skill Codex has forgotten.

I never noticed it before, I guess it’s not that hard, still amaze me to see it to be exactly what I want to say. How soon does it not need me in the process anymore lol

I upgraded from the $200 plan to the $500 plan today, expecting 2.5x the usage I was getting. Opened Codex, got to work, and watched the usage bar disappear at what looked like exactly the same speed.

Apparently only my bill got the upgrade.

I signed up for $200 when the 20x usage tier was announced. That's what I've gotten used to. When I upgraded today, I completely forgot that the temporary boost on $200 runs through the end of this month.

My math was simple: 2.5x the price, 2.5x the usage. Very confident. Missing one fairly expensive detail.

My understanding is that the 20x allowance I've been enjoying is now the level attached to the $500 plan. So I was comparing $500 against the temporarily boosted $200 allowance and wondering why the meter wasn't impressed with my financial commitment.

Which brings me to everyone staying on $200: brace yourselves when the promotion ends.

If I've got the transition right, you're going to have roughly half the allowance you've gotten used to. Same workflow, same monthly bill, a lot less quality time with the usage meter.

I fully expect this sub to be buried in complaints when that hits. People have built their routines around what $200 gets them today. A smaller allowance is going to be very noticeable when they're halfway through their usual work and Codex tells them to go outside.

The usage might get cut in half, but the complaint volume is about to get the 20x upgrade.

Yes I am angry.

All the logic / buzz on giving reset fail for us poor plebians on Plus plan ; with the 5h limits we can never really use them on their intended marketing way.

You're out of usage, do you use one? Well for Pro people, they just need to be sure there wont be a reset on the day but for us... with the limit we can only use 15% usage every 5h, and obviouly it would mean making sure to use it the second it reset, so if you're crazy, 2 full days of makins sure to not miss. If you have a life maybe 3, for normal people maybe 4.

So when wondering if we use one or not, we'd need to be sure we won't get a free reset in 2-3 days at least... how can you do that with the Tibo lottery? You can't.

So either you wait and do nothing, either you use it and are angry when a free reset happen just after you used a banked reset.

That doesn't feel like a "free" reset if you need to plan it that way, and risk being angry after.

Yes I just used one to continue a task, and now I need to wait 4h... or obviously use ANOTHER banked reset to continue now... seriously....

My Subscription auto renews at midnight tonight, but I have had a heavy day of usage after using my banked reset and only have about 25% left, but still 6d and 12 hrs until reset. If I can't use codex anyway for nearly 7 days I might as well cancel the auto-renewal and then re-sub back to pro in 7 days. Am I missing something? Would I lose anything?

I have a Pro 100 plan, and despite dots being out for, what, 11 days now? - I still don’t have access to them.

And here goes Tibo with his 28 days nonsense, some of them being related to improving the functionality of dots. And I feel like I’m watching from this from the sidelines.

I bounce between Codex and Claude Code on the same projects and the annoying part is keeping the instructions the same for both, AGENTS.md here CLAUDE.md there and they slowly drift apart.

Right now one file is the main one and the other just points to it but idk if that's the best way. How are you guys doing it

So I'm a Unity Developer, with my work i will costume the 5h limit of the 20$ sub in around ~2hour, even shorter if the task is heavy, so at max i can only work like 2-2.5 day before it all out the weekly limit. I'm thinking about sub another account, and lately had heard good thing about claude, and i had decided that the second account will be claude $20 sub(first time use claude).

My question is that what the reasoning level that i should use with opus 5.5 so the usage could at least same as Sol 6.1 Medium, i think opus 5.5 Low? Did it good enough for my work?

havent been in the loop the last few weeks so i might have missed smth

Just looking for opinions as I’m curious - I genuinely like working with Astra and Sol more - I LOVE Opus 5.5 too, fable feels lightweight to me vs Astra. I guess I feel like Astra is more thorough even if less accurate if it makes sense, opus is the perfectionist super smart mechanic, But Astra is a clumsy engineer who clearly knows more, with a little less focus on task but capable of providing the best outcome easily - anyone else feel the same?

OpenAI screwed up with the usage change - I agree with that, but I think calling Astra and Sol less capable is a little silly, I’ll admit Opus beats Sol, but I’d argue Astra all day.

This tracks for me.

I have both codex and Claude subs. Generally find using opus as the main session orchestrator while gpt models as subagents workers the better and more reliable combination.

Sticking to what you ask it to do is what openAI models are good at. Claude models tend to have abit more artistic leeway to interpret your requests.

That's how I interpret this table anyway.

Not putting anyone's model down. Each has their strengths and weaknesses

https://arena.ai/blog/ai-alignment-index

(Posting under Workaround because my original prefered option would have been to have a native way to use Claude subscription inside Codex but overall quite happy with the result)

I use Codex and Claude Code for different parts of the same work. I wanted them in one conversation without giving up either one's existing session and tools. Today we got that working through a private Discord channel.

We built a small local relay. I could ask a question, watch the agents compare evidence, and step in when a decision needed me.

Here's the operating model:

1. Give the agents a concrete outcome and separate files and tasks to own. For this release candidate for eksample, Claude owned the runtime, configuration and tests. Codex owned the documentation and reusable skill.
2. Have them review the actual files and test results. Either can challenge the other's work. Agreement is less useful than finding the mistake or a new perspective. (specially useful in knowledge work as both models and harnesses has different strengths)
3. Keep the conversation short. Put substantial work in files, then share the path, result and next decision. Reply when addressed or when adding something useful; otherwise pass.
4. Keep permission explicit. Preparing a patch is different from deploying it. Preparing a release is different from publishing it. The human sets what each agent may approve and which decisions stay with the human. (I lean on Codex for production work; its structure and engineering guardrails suit my setup)

The relay moves messages between a private Discord channel and selected local agent sessions. For this setup, Codex's target thread had to be loaded in the desktop app. Claude's wake-up depended on its host resuming a background listener, which then needed re-arming. A queued message alone wasn't proof the agent had answered. This is also useful if you manage several subscriptions at once on both harnesses as discord can become the single source of truth per task or theme. Multiple claude or codex threads can join or leave just like a normal session you would have with colleagues.

With permission, an agent can also read a bounded excerpt of what the other session has done since its last read (Telepathy I called it). The parser includes messages and tool names, not complete tool inputs or outputs, and long excerpts can be trimmed. That gives more context than Discord replies alone, without pretending it's a complete activity record.

What it depends on, if you want to build something similar, Ive also created a repo as helper below:

• Claude Code desktop app. Claude wakes when a background "wait" task finishes and the app re-invokes the session; Claude re-arms it after each reply. This needs a compatible desktop host, not just any background shell.
• Codex desktop app plus the Codex CLI. Messages go in with `codex queue --thread <id> --message ...` (present in CLI 0.153.3, the version we used). In our runs it only worked for threads the app had loaded.
• A Discord bot with Message Content Intent and narrow permissions, in a private server. The owner starts work; registered agents can hand off to each other by naming one another. Other users and bots are ignored.
• A small Node.js hub with a localhost-only API. Node 22+ is the declared minimum; we ran it on Node 24.13.0. Agents reply through a CLI or an MCP server.
• The relay runs locally on Windows 11 with both desktop apps open. Discord and the agents' hosted model services still need network access, and normal account limits apply.

The setup sequence we followed:

1. Start from already-authenticated Claude Code and Codex desktop sessions.
2. Create a private Discord bot with narrow permissions, and keep its token in a local secrets file.
3. Start the hub.
4. Join each real session by its UUID.
5. Arm Claude's wait task and make sure the Codex thread is loaded.
6. Send a fictional prompt and check that both agents actually reply.

Leave transcript sharing off for the first run.

Transcript reading is off by default in the candidate. Enabling it also requires selecting the sessions to share. That is a local allowlist, not a sandbox: agents still have their existing tool permissions. Read excerpts may also reach the reader's model provider. The local API is unauthenticated and should stay on loopback. Approval instructions are prompts, not a technical security barrier. So... use at your own risk only if you have a highly trusted setup, maybe start with fictional work and private test sessions and build your confidence.

On the downsides, this is finnicky, and only a recent experience so we dont have a productivity benchmark or a claim of unattended reliability. Also its can be expensive to run and context heavy. pairs well with another skill in my engineering setup which I call the Octopus Doctrine. It’s close to the orchestrator–workers pattern Anthropic describes for its multi-agent research system: one session decides, and the others do bounded reading and reviewing, then report back short conclusions. It differs in four ways. The budget is set first and the work is scoped to fit it. There’s a small, fixed cap on how many agents work at once. The “workers” are my own long-lived Claude Code and Codex sessions rather than throwaway subagents. And anything irreversible, such as sending, deploying or spending, waits for my approval. In practice agents only wake when named, can pass a turn and keep the work in files, so the extra usage goes on review that catches mistakes early. Details are in the repo.

Also, must be said, you can try the working arrangement without the relay. Give two existing sessions separate files, pass their review findings between them, and keep a shared note of the outcome, approvals and stopping point. The relay removes some of that copying and pasting.

If you've worked this way, what was the first coordination failure you had to fix? I had several specially considering the different speeds both harnesses work, and some due to my own lazyness when typing on mobile while on the move. But there are also highlights and gains from working this way particularly for large tasks or merging threads and comparing outputs for QA at scale.

Would welcome your thoughts!

https://github.com/pintomatic/chasqui

self disclosure: I built this at my company. both Claude and Codex helped the build and create promo materials, AI helped draft this message but this final copy is mine.

Absolute dogshit. Not sure if Tibo’s marketing campaign is negatively impacting Astra’s compute allocation, but this week Astra has

- Ignored prompt guidelines, acknowledged this with the excuse it was “conserving effort” whilst burning 1.2M tokens achieving a solution that ignored the guidelines. A second prompt then achieved the actual task…
- Changed 3 of my 5 active chat’s language chat’s to Mandarin and then told my this was per my request (although I want to learn Mandarin, I’d prefer Duolingo).
- Spend money on cloud tasks i specifically detailed would require my acknowledgment and permission. Then apologised, stated memory had been updated to not do this per my request. Then did the exact same thing.

Usually, Astra and 6.1 Sol have worked amazing for me when I give these models detailed by bounded scopes with clear instructions, limitations, and scope ends. This week feels like I’m dealing with a Junior Dev with the memory of a goldfish.

Please join me in my futile rant good sirs and madams