{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreib66g7viyjnlb6aevugtvkirums4apld6pttkobaaxqmi6lvwqhfu",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:lk3jfj3zq4k4wxnk474axylu/app.bsky.feed.post/3mox4yw76se62"
  },
  "path": "/t/using-chatgpt-for-planning-vs-codex/1382876?page=2#post_34",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-23T09:11:50.000Z",
  "site": "https://community.openai.com",
  "tags": [
    "link"
  ],
  "textContent": "This is very close to the workflow I was trying to describe in an earlier feature request thread.\n\nFor me, the core issue is not only “ChatGPT for planning vs Codex for implementation”, but the lack of a first-class bridge between them:\n\n  * ChatGPT / a planner-reviewer model should have user-approved access to the same repository context.\n\n  * Codex should implement changes in that repository.\n\n  * The resulting diff should go back to a separate reviewer role/model.\n\n  * Codex should address the review comments.\n\n  * The human should remain the final approver before anything is applied or merged.\n\n\n\n\nThe 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.\n\nHere is the earlier thread where I described the orchestrated loop / independent review / shared repository context idea: link\n\nI think these discussions are pointing at the same missing workflow: ChatGPT as planner/reviewer, Codex as implementer, shared repo context, and explicit human approval.",
  "title": "Using ChatGPT for Planning vs Codex?"
}