[varshar]

@dworks: Good insights. Thanks!

If you add a dialectic between Opus 4.5 and GPT 5.2 (not the Codex variant), your workflow - which I use as well, albeit slightly differently [1] - may work even better.

This dialectic also has the happy side-effect of being fairly token efficient.

IME, Claude Code employs much better CLI tooling+sandboxing when implementing while GPT 5.2 does excellent multifaceted critique even in complex situations.

[1]

- spec requirement / iterate spec until dialectic is exhausted, then markdown

- plan / iterate plan until dialectic is exhausted, then markdown

- implement / curl-test + manual test / code review until dialectic is exhausted

- update previous repo context checkpoint (plus README.md and AGENTS.md) in markdown

[dworks]

adding another external model/agent is exactly what I have been planning as the next step. in fact i already paste the implementation and test summaries into chatgpt, and it is extremely helpful in hardening requirements, making them more extensible, or picking up gaps between the implementations and the initial specs. it would be very useful to have this in the workflow itself, rather than the coding agent reviewing its own work - there is a sense that it is getting tunnel visioned.

i agree that CC seems like a better harness, but I think GPT is a better model. So I will keep it all inside the Codex VSCode plugin workflow.