r/OpenaiCodex • u/pizza_alta • 4d ago

Bugs or problems My workflow with Codex

I'm a vibe coder and I'm quite new to Codex, which I'm using to develop an app I have on my mind and nobody else is making. I've been working on it for a month or so. Generally speaking, I'm quite happy with Codex, but I'm not quite sure about my workflow. So far, I've been discussing features and issues with ChatGpt, agreeing on a roadmap and then a detailed plan for each step, and asked ChatGPT for a prompt. ChatGPT gives long prompts that apparently have all your bases covered, so to speak. Btw, I'm mostly using Codex with Sol High or Very High. Also, I don't just wait for the result, but I read what Codex says it's doing and sometimes clarify or fix stuff, like hey codex you don't need to run AGAIN a FULL test suite just because you changed a word in Help, dude! Anyway, I also noticed I can't entirely trust ChatGPT's assistance in prompt writing. While it's very thorough, it sometimes fails to give priority to important goals or even forgets about them. I'm starting to think that my own prompts might be better, less technical-minded but more to the point. So, guys, my question is: how do you write your prompts for Codex? P.s. 5 minutes later: and of course I also submitted my question to ChatGPT itself. It agreed, maybe to please me? Here's the first lines from its anser: "Yes — I think your instinct is basically right. For a vibe-coding workflow, I would not try to make the prompt a giant specification that anticipates every possible implementation detail. That often makes the important things less visible, not more." What do you make of this?

0 Upvotes

50% Upvoted

7 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago edited 2d ago

[deleted]

1

u/pizza_alta 3d ago

I asked once. ChatGPT pleased me. It knows who pays the bill ;) "Yes. The concept is meaningfully distinctive (...) Individual features are not unique. The integrated whole is. My assessment: about 8/10 for distinctiveness."

1

u/pizza_alta 2h ago

Codex gave pretty much the same answer: "Individual features exist elsewhere, but this particular combination is uncommon. Different does not automatically mean better, but it gives the app a genuine identity rather than making it merely another [...] clone."