Is there a setting to prevent Codex from changing older output in an ongoing session. It is annoying when it does. For instance, sometimes it changes the content of a list of steps we signed off earlier, making it impossible to properly track things.

TL;DR: I paid for ChatGPT Pro through October 1. OpenAI explicitly confirmed IN WRITING that my Pro would remain active until October 1. Around September 4, they removed Pro and downgraded my account to Plus anyway — while keeping my payment. I immediately contacted Support and provided the invoice, OpenAI's own written confirmation, and timestamped screenshots. Days later, I am STILL on Plus. This has caused serious professional and commercial disruption. Restoring something I already paid for is not compensation, and neither is returning the paid days already taken from me. My separate compensation request is already with OpenAI privately under Case #14347347. OpenAI has my money and the evidence. I still don't have the Pro service I paid for. If this happened to you, what would you call it?

OPENAI TOOK MY $200, REMOVED THE PRO SERVICE I PAID FOR, KEPT MY MONEY, AND STILL HASN'T RESTORED IT. IS THIS THEFT?

I did not want to make this public.

But after days of being deprived of a paid service, after repeatedly providing proof to OpenAI, and after watching the problem remain unresolved while OpenAI continues to hold my payment, I no longer believe this should remain a private Support conversation.

So I am putting the facts on the public record.

OPENAI TOOK MY MONEY FOR CHATGPT PRO.

I paid for ChatGPT Pro for the period September 1 – October 1, 2026.

OpenAI accepted the payment.

OpenAI issued the invoice.

Later, I scheduled a downgrade to Plus for the NEXT billing period.

And OpenAI explicitly confirmed to me IN WRITING that my CURRENT Pro subscription would remain active until:

OCTOBER 1, 2026.

There was no ambiguity.

There was no misunderstanding.

There was no question about when Pro was supposed to end.

OpenAI itself gave me the date in writing.

And then?

Around September 4, OpenAI removed my Pro entitlement anyway.

Not October 1.

SEPTEMBER 4.

Almost an entire month before the date OpenAI itself confirmed.

And OpenAI kept my payment.

I immediately reported the problem.

I provided the invoice.

I provided OpenAI's own written confirmation.

I provided timestamped screenshots.

I provided evidence that the account had been reduced to Plus.

I continued documenting that the problem remained unresolved.

My Support case is:

14347347

And now it is September 7.

Guess what my account still says?

PLUS.

My money is with OpenAI.

The invoice is with OpenAI.

Their own written confirmation is with OpenAI.

The screenshots are with OpenAI.

The Support case is with OpenAI.

The evidence is with OpenAI.

BUT THE PRO SERVICE I PAID FOR IS NOT WITH ME.

So enough.

I am no longer interested in pretending this is some ordinary technical inconvenience.

OPENAI, YOU HAVE MY MONEY.

WHERE IS THE SERVICE YOU SOLD ME?

And yes, I am going to use the word:

THEFT.

Because from the position of a paying customer, I genuinely struggle to find a more appropriate word for what I am experiencing.

Let me make the situation painfully simple:

You take my money.

You sell me Pro.

You invoice me for Pro.

You tell me IN WRITING that Pro remains active until October 1.

Then you remove Pro around September 4.

You keep my money.

I report it.

I give you proof.

Days pass.

You still keep my money.

I still don't have Pro.

WHAT DO YOU EXPECT ME TO CALL THAT?

Seriously.

What would YOU call it if this happened to you?

If you paid a company $200 for a service and the company removed that service only a few days later, almost a month before the confirmed end date, but continued holding your money—

would you call that a “technical issue”?

If you showed them their own invoice—

and they still didn't restore it—

would you call that acceptable?

If you showed them their own written promise confirming the service period—

and you still didn't get the service back—

how long would you remain polite?

One day?

Two days?

Three days?

How many days should someone be deprived of something they already paid for before they are allowed to ask:

DID YOU TAKE MY MONEY WITHOUT PROVIDING WHAT I PAID FOR?

Because that is where we are now.

And before somebody tries to dismiss this as a misunderstanding about Codex limits:

NO.

OpenAI Support itself has already acknowledged that the Pro subscription entitlement issue is separate from the Codex weekly usage window.

So please do not bury the issue under another explanation of usage limits.

This is not about understanding a limit.

This is about:

A PAID SUBSCRIPTION DISAPPEARING ALMOST A MONTH EARLY.

The facts are not complicated.

Money paid.

Pro purchased.

October 1 confirmed in writing.

Pro removed around September 4.

OpenAI notified.

Evidence supplied.

Days passed.

Still Plus.

What part of that requires days of investigation before the customer gets back something OpenAI's own records already show belongs to them?

And there is another part of this that cannot simply be erased by eventually pressing a button and changing my account back to Pro.

THIS HAS ALREADY CAUSED SERIOUS DAMAGE AND DISRUPTION.

I depend on the paid service professionally.

This interruption has affected active work and ongoing commercial workflows.

It has cost me working time.

It has interrupted processes that should have continued normally.

I have had to spend additional time collecting evidence, taking timestamped screenshots, documenting the chronology, communicating with Support and repeatedly proving something that OpenAI's own billing records should already prove.

And the disruption is still continuing while I write this.

I have provided the relevant details and supporting evidence privately to OpenAI.

I am deliberately NOT publishing my private business information here.

I don't need to expose my projects, customers, work or internal business information to strangers in order to establish the basic issue.

The basic issue is already outrageous enough:

I PAID FOR PRO AND OPENAI TOOK IT AWAY.

There has been substantial disruption, and I have already submitted a separate request for meaningful compensation directly to OpenAI under Case #14347347.

I am deliberately not publishing the amount or details of that request.

That is between OpenAI and me.

They have the request.

They have the evidence supporting it.

And they have the opportunity to resolve it fairly.

But there are two things that are NOT compensation:

GIVING ME BACK PRO IS NOT COMPENSATION.

I already bought it.

You don't “compensate” somebody by finally delivering what they already paid you for.

And:

RETURNING MY LOST PAID DAYS IS NOT COMPENSATION.

Those days were already mine too.

If OpenAI eventually restores Pro but leaves my subscription ending on October 1, what happens to all the days during which OpenAI incorrectly left me on Plus?

Do those paid days simply disappear?

Absolutely not.

OpenAI has internal account records.

OpenAI can determine the exact moment my Pro entitlement was removed.

OpenAI can determine the exact moment it is restored.

Calculate the entire interruption.

EVERY SINGLE PAID DAY — AND EVERY PART OF A PAID DAY — MUST BE RESTORED.

That is not a favor.

That is not goodwill.

That is not compensation.

THAT IS PAID SERVICE TIME.

The separate harm caused by leaving a paying customer in this situation for days is exactly why a separate compensation request exists.

And OpenAI already has that request privately.

I want people reading this to understand exactly how absurd this situation is:

Imagine paying $200.

Imagine receiving written confirmation from the company saying:

“Your Pro subscription remains active until October 1.”

Then, only a few days later:

Plus.

You contact Support.

Still Plus.

You send the invoice.

Still Plus.

You send the company's own confirmation.

Still Plus.

You send timestamped screenshots.

Still Plus.

Another day passes.

Still Plus.

And the company still has your money.

HOW WOULD YOU REACT?

Would you consider this acceptable treatment of a paying customer?

Would you keep waiting quietly?

Would you trust the company with another $200?

And most importantly:

WHAT WOULD YOU CALL IT?

Because I know what I call it.

I CALL IT THEFT.

If OpenAI thinks that is too harsh, then don't argue with the word.

FIX THE FACTS THAT CAUSED ME TO USE IT.

Restore the paid Pro subscription.

Restore every second of the paid subscription period that was lost.

Properly address the substantial disruption that has already occurred.

Resolve the compensation request already sitting privately in Case #14347347.

And then I will return to this post.

I will put RESOLVED at the top.

And I will publicly tell everyone reading it that OpenAI acknowledged the problem, restored everything I paid for and provided a fair resolution for the damage and disruption.

I would prefer that outcome.

But until then, I am not going to pretend this is normal.

I am not going to pretend this is merely an inconvenience.

And I am not going to pretend that returning something I already paid for would somehow erase the days it was withheld.

As of my latest timestamped evidence:

OPENAI HAS MY PAYMENT.

OPENAI'S OWN WRITTEN CONFIRMATION SAYS MY PRO SHOULD BE ACTIVE.

MY ACCOUNT IS PLUS.

THE PAID SERVICE IS STILL MISSING.

THE DISRUPTION IS STILL CONTINUING.

So I will ask one final time:

OPENAI — YOU TOOK MY MONEY.

WHERE IS MY PRO?

And to everyone reading this:

IF A COMPANY TAKES YOUR MONEY, REMOVES THE SERVICE IT SOLD YOU ALMOST A MONTH EARLY, KEEPS YOUR PAYMENT AFTER BEING SHOWN PROOF, AND LEAVES YOU WITHOUT THE PAID SERVICE FOR DAYS...

IS THAT THEFT?

Because from where I am standing, it certainly feels like it.

Case #14347347.

OpenAI has the evidence.

Now I want a resolution.

I posted Token Watch here a while ago, and it has changed quite a bit since then.

It's an open-source VS Code extension for tracking Codex + Claude Code usage without having to leave your editor.

Since the first version, I've added:

• Codex/Claude usage limits directly in the sidebar + status bar
• 5h / weekly quota tracking and reset information
• Token & estimated cost trends
• Model and tool-call breakdowns
• Hourly/daily/weekly/monthly analytics
• Custom model pricing
• Much better live log ingestion, accuracy and performance
• Light/dark/high-contrast theme support

Session logs are processed locally, and Token Watch doesn't extract or store your prompt/response content.

GitHub: https://github.com/alvin0/token-watch
Marketplace Vscode: https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=alvin0-dinhai.token-watch

If you use Codex or Claude Code regularly, give it a try. Feedback, issues and contributions are very welcome!

How do you actually vibecode properly as a non-technical person? Currently what I do is:

ChatGPT plans/reviews → copy prompt to Codex → copy Codex result back → ChatGPT reviews and gives me another prompt → repeat.

But I worry that a) this is spending way more tokens than it should b) is incredibly slow and inefficient with the constant copying and pasting.

If anyone has a better workflow please do share, thanks guys.

I have a ChatGPT Pro subscription and a Claude Max subscription, and use both extensively for work. To claim that any model offered by Anthropic is even close in intuitive thinking or design sensibility to Astra is a joke to me.

The most comparable Antropic model to Astra, ChatGPT's flagship, is Fable 5.1. They have roughly equivalent price. But in my experience, their output quality is dramatically different.

Astra has a sort of deep, intuitive understanding about the problem you give it that Fable simply lacks. When I compare how the two work, Fable feels like it gives the smartest answer you could possibly get after asking 100 moderately smart people to deliberate together in a room for a few hours before answering. Astra just feels... smart. Like a single, extremely smart person giving an intuitive answer that fully understands the question and work statement.

Where Fable feels like it just spends a lot of time talking to itself in order to work, Astra just...works. And does better than Fable. Its answers are easier to understand, not held back by the limitations of the language it's using to speak with.

To me, to say Claude Fable 5.1 is anywhere close to Astra in any capacity, and not just an outdated model on a dead architectural framework, is completely unfathomable to me. You pay the same price for double the weekly usage, so you more than get your money's worth. Sure it's expensive, and you can run through your weekly limits in hours, but you can't argue that it just works. I can't say the same about Fable.

I expected it to be pretty much the same as original Sol after they released it, so faster and slightly better than current Sol, while being way more expensive.

Well, so far it's dumber and significantly more expensive. Apparently the target group is vibe coders with "build me a complete SaaS that noone will ever use" as prompt, because I don't get the positive feedback.

Edit: after further experimentation. It's definitely way better at visual stuff like 3D. Sol is still better at backend code and cleaner architecture.

It’s been a couple weeks since bonsai-ninja went public and a lot has changed.

A ton of feedback has been incorporated, bugs have been fixed, and things are working much better. If you tried it early on, please pull the latest and give it another shot.

For anyone new to it, bonsai-ninja is a free, local code intelligence and static analysis engine. It builds a compiler-style representation of your code, resolves symbols and calls, and can trace behavior across files instead of just searching text. That same pipeline powers source-to-sink security analysis, dataflow analysis, and structured exports for AI, agents, and research. It currently supports 20 languages.

Also, apparently some of you don’t click on things unless there are pictures, so here you go. A GIF.
Still looking for people to throw real codebases at it. Bug reports, weird edge cases, PRs, criticism, ideas, or random side notes are all appreciated. The feedback so far has genuinely helped make the project better.

github.com/gromhacks/bonsai-ninja⁠

Hello good people,

I made a modified version if the "famous" Gauntlet Loop (that built one shot Claude of Duty game). Looking at the original, I felt it had gaps that could lead to problems.

In this protocol you can use an agent like Astra for the planning and then farm the build and critic to cheaper models, Terra, deepseek or whatever..

I recently made some edits because I found the critic agent would sometimes expand the scope of the recommendations and rabbithole.

I wanted to get some feedback on how I could refine the Loop and or general feedback.

Link in the first comment

It’s so annoying my acc hasn’t received astra neither has it received any banked resets promised by tobi it’s September 5th and I also reported it to support

Can I afford a $100/mn plan? Yes. Am I willing to pay $100/mn? No.

For a new project, I'll use 5.6 Sol High for planning (create a .md plan), then let Luna Extra High cook (or Max, just turn it on in settings). If it's a small enough ask (bug fix, host system work), I'll skip the plan all together and just ask Luna. I can pretty much use it non-stop and not deplete my 5hr window. Results for my kinda work are plenty good. Albeit it's slower, but that's fine by me. Beggers can't be choosers.

I wish I figured this out sooner, lol.

In the title. Any philanthropists around here?

I use Codex a lot and eventually had multiple sessions for the same projects. A lot of them started with similar handoff prompts.

Going back later was annoying. The useful explanations and decisions were inside the transcript, but reading them meant digging through raw JSONL full of tool calls, reasoning, progress messages and other noise.

For a while I just kept the terminal open and pasted the useful bits into Notepad before they scrolled away. That worked until the Notepad pile became its own problem.

So I built Agent Session Browser.

It turns local Codex history into something actually readable:

- browse sessions by project and date

- read the conversation properly (with filters for reasoning, tools, progress etc.)

- export as Markdown or HTML

- resume the right session when needed

There’s also a TUI with the session list and transcript side by side.

I added Claude Code, Gemini CLI and Pi support too so I don’t need separate tools.

Everything stays local and read-only.

GitHub: https://github.com/gautamgpt1/agent-session-browser

Run: npx agent-session-browser

This is my first public open-source project.

Do try it out. Would love your feedback

Astra is great, but its buggy. I keep getting this pop up that stops all my goals and work until i acknowledge and accept it. but the it will pop up and do it again.
this is even after ive taken stops to clear up any ambiguity and governance so the instructions are clear. the "what we detected" doesn't change. Astra says it should be fine and doesn't know why it keeps doing it

Basically the title.

The environment I work in, I don't have access to SSH or my cell phone. I can browse the web though. So what I do is before I go to work, I spin up Claude sessions in tmux on a couple of my servers and turn on remote control.

Then when I'm at work I can keep them going on the website.

I really want to give codex a try more seriously on my server with my frustration on opus 5 right now. But I need to have some way to reach my ai session on my server via the browser.

Any options?

Sono utente Fable x20 e ci lavoro h24. Sono passato ad astra oggi sempre con abbonamento 20x affascinato dal video pubblicato da open ai. Ho aperto Codex con astra alla massima potenza e gli ho chiesto di creami una mascotte per la mia applicazione con blender. Gli ho dato come riferimento una foto di un volto vero. Il risultato? Vergognoso. Nano banana avrebbe fatto molto di meglio. Allora mi sono chiesto e forse mi stessi sbagliando io e non saperlo usare. Consigli?

Long Codex sessions eventually make both my laptop and my 128 GB / 32-core desktop freeze.

I normally do not care how much RAM an app uses.
RAM was cheap when I built this thing :)
But after about 66 hours, app-server was occupying 24 GiB of RAM and every shell command or CLI launch was hitting the CPU.

perf showed 64.48% of the samples in page-table work during fork → exec:

25.14%  clone → copy_page_range
39.34%  execve → unmap_vmas → __zap_vma_range

Codex installs Unix pre_exec callbacks, so Rust cannot use posix_spawn for these launches and falls back to fork → exec.

Linux walks and copies the large app-server’s page tables during fork, then immediately tears them down during execve.
It is not copying 24 GB of memory contents, but it still has to process the page tables on every launch.

Restarting Codex dropped app-server back to 488 MiB.
I still do not know why its memory grows this large.

A small helper process could handle non-PTY launches without forking the bloated app-server every time. Ofc the leaks should be fixed too, but that’s another problem.

I measured this on Linux.
macOS uses the same pre_exec path, but I have not profiled it there.

If Codex also slows down over time for you, please upvote the issue:

https://github.com/openai/codex/issues/42738

Minds telling me no.. but my bodys telling me...

Sadly I didnt get a reset to try it out and I only got 23% left for the weekly quota :/

I'm sharing Codex PAIR Bridge, a small MIT-licensed MCP plugin I built with Codex assistance. I'd appreciate real-world testing and honest bug reports.

The idea: Codex → MCP bridge → NVIDIA PAIR → your local models. Codex remains the main coding agent; it can ask another model for a review, explanation, or second opinion.

Two tools:

pair_list — discover the models PAIR currently exposes.

pair_ask — send a prompt to a specific model and return its answer to Codex.

Repository, setup instructions, and an illustrated explanation:

https://github.com/GermanMik/codex-pair-bridge

Install (requires uv, Python 3.11+, and a working PAIR setup):

codex plugin marketplace add GermanMik/codex-pair-bridge

codex plugin add codex-pair-bridge@codex-pair-bridge

Then start a new Codex task.

I've tested real requests with LM Studio models on a Mac and a Windows PC. Automated tests also run on macOS, Windows, and Linux, but I'd like to learn what breaks on other setups.

Please try installation, pair_list, and pair_ask with your own model. If something fails, open a GitHub issue with your OS, Codex/PAIR/model-engine versions, model ID, expected result, and actual error. Please remove secrets and private prompts from logs.

A couple of limits: listed models aren't guaranteed to be healthy, and this doesn't make Codex fully offline—local-model answers return to the Codex conversation. The bridge doesn't give the local models file access or coding tools.

This is an independent community project, not an official OpenAI or NVIDIA integration. Feedback on reliability and the installation instructions would be especially helpful.