Using ChatGPT for Planning vs Codex?

This is very close to the workflow I was trying to describe in an earlier feature request thread. For me, the core issue is not only “ChatGPT for planning vs Codex for implementation”, but the lack of a first-class bridge between them: * ChatGPT / a planner-reviewer model should have user-approved access to the same repository context. * Codex should implement changes in that repository. * The resulting diff should go back to a separate reviewer role/model. * Codex should address the review comments. * The human should remain the final approver before anything is applied or merged. The current workaround is manual: upload/archive project context into ChatGPT, ask it to prepare Codex instructions, paste them into Codex, bring the diff back to ChatGPT for review, then paste follow-up instructions back into Codex. Here is the earlier thread where I described the orchestrated loop / independent review / shared repository context idea: link I think these discussions are pointing at the same missing workflow: ChatGPT as planner/reviewer, Codex as implementer, shared repo context, and explicit human approval.