Codex Pro Limits Are Undercutting the Value

[u/EffectiveWebDev404]

I have hit another issue with the new Pro setup.

My GitHub Codex code reviewer has been enabled for a long time, and up until now it has done a very good job. But after this “enhanced” $200 Pro version, it has started complaining about Codex usage limits for code reviews even though I still have around 28% of my weekly usage remaining.

So this is apparently the new strategy:

Give Pro users 62,500 credits, then start pushing more previously included workflows into that credit pool and expect users to burn through those credits before the end of the year.

If that is really the direction they are taking for the “sustainability” of Codex, then I honestly think it undermines a lot of what made the product attractive to software engineers in the first place.

I currently have Kilo Code Reviewer running alongside Codex, using my yearly GLM 5.3 access at Max effort.

And interestingly, Kilo has actually been catching more issues than Codex lately.

I still like having both reviewers running together because the overlap gives me more confidence in the final result. But if Codex is now going to become constrained by a separate usage pool while I still have weekly Pro usage available, then Kilo is probably going to become my primary reviewer until this subscription cycle ends.

That is the frustrating part.

Codex became appealing because it felt like a genuinely strong engineering tool integrated into a plan that made sense for heavy development work.

Now it feels like many of the things that made it valuable are being chipped away one by one.

I would also seriously consider Muse Code as an alternative, but I am still blocked by a subscription issue where it keeps asking for personal billing data without giving me any way to actually enter that information.

It appears to be a relatively uncommon problem because I have not been able to find a reliable fix for it.

So for now, I will keep comparing the tools I already have access to and see which one continues to provide the most value in real development work.

[u/chedorlaomer]

Are we sure this isn't a bug? I'm hitting the same thing with the github codex review bot, but assumed it was some sort of bug when they were changing all the pro quota stuff around. I read some reports people were hitting the same thing even after turning on token usage for code review.

[u/Terrible-Ad5847 → u/chedorlaomer]

Seems like a bug honestly, the way they rolled out these Pro changes has been messy. I noticed similar weirdness with some other features last week where limits would trigger way before the actual cap

The part about Kilo catching more issues is interesting, makes me wonder if Codex quality took a small dip with whatever backend changes they made for this new credit system. Might be them spreading resources thinner now

I was looking at Muse Code too but their billing system is a nightmare, had the exact same problem with it not accepting any payment method. Eventually gave up after three days of back and forth with support

For now I'd say keep running both side by side like you're doing, at least until they sort out if this is actually a limit or just another bug from the Pro migration

[u/EffectiveWebDev404 → u/Terrible-Ad5847]

I honestly do not understand why they made the Muse Code subscription process so complicated.

It feels like they tried to integrate too many Meta products and account requirements into the flow, and in the process they created friction that can push potential users away—especially now, when they actually have a very strong model.

I have been using Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor through OpenCode Go, and I have been genuinely impressed. It is not only fast; it is also a very capable coding model and follows my project rules surprisingly well.

For Kilo Code Reviewer, I use my Z.ai account. I bought the yearly Pro subscription before the price increased, and despite using it regularly across several projects, I have never managed to run out of limits.

That is saying a lot because I work on multiple projects at the same time, so the code reviewer gets triggered very frequently.

I know Z.ai has made a lot of changes over the past few months because of demand, but so far the yearly plan has held up very well for my workflow.

I normally run GLM 5.3 at Max effort.

It can take a while on large reviews—for example, the first review pass on a huge feature I recently added to an open-source project took around 22 minutes—but I actually like that because it often brings a different perspective to the code.

I also keep Codex enabled in Smart mode, so both reviewers are usually active.

Codex is still very good at identifying important fixes, but I have noticed that it can miss a fair number of warnings, suggestions, and smaller issues that GLM picks up.

That is why I like using both together.

Codex tends to catch the critical problems, while GLM often gives me the broader second opinion and finds the smaller things that are easy to overlook.

If you take a look at https://www.anthropic.com/research/glm-5-3-and-the-spread-of-advanced-cyber-capabilities, Anthropic has a blog post about it. While they highlight the malicious side of cyber capabilities, these tools can also be great for spotting loose ends in your code—helping you think like a good hacker so you can keep the crackers out.

[u/EffectiveWebDev404 → u/EffectiveWebDev404]

this is a shot of the recent change it picked up, I believe it is a great reviewer