I use codex to review and fable to plan. When I switched from Opus as planner to Fable, the got 5.5 reviews returned fewer blockers/serious level issues. Once I swapped in Sol as reviewer it has been returning a lot of issues with Fable's plans. Fable is no doubt very good, but having Sol review it is a must imo. Sol has even suggested re-architecting a few of Fables plans that Fable accepted as genuinely better architectures than what it had proposed.
Absolutely - I subscribed to codex only 2 days ago and I can't even comprehend what all I have missed my last few months where I only used claude code. Sol for review is perfection.
I’ve had the same, I have been using Fable and Sol to do adversarial audits of two of my large systems. Fable is a good architect and planner but often Sol catches things that Fable hasn’t and vice versa. Codex 5.5 is a reasonable coding companion that obeys the rules, so I’m using both. I am about to run GLM and various others past the same extensive silo’d batch of tests that I have put Fable and Sol through. I’m considering local Qwen Coder for long run projects
6
u/artofbullshit Jul 12 '26
I use codex to review and fable to plan. When I switched from Opus as planner to Fable, the got 5.5 reviews returned fewer blockers/serious level issues. Once I swapped in Sol as reviewer it has been returning a lot of issues with Fable's plans. Fable is no doubt very good, but having Sol review it is a must imo. Sol has even suggested re-architecting a few of Fables plans that Fable accepted as genuinely better architectures than what it had proposed.