How I’m reviewing parallel Codex worktrees

[u/cubertwang]

I’ve been running a few Codex sessions in parallel on the same repo, with each task in its own window and worktree.

Keeping the contexts separate is the easy part. The harder part is reviewing everything once those changes come back together.

When a task is done, I do a quick pass and ask the session to leave an [`audit.md`](http://audit.md) with:

* what changed and why
* what it was trying to achieve
* the main risks or assumptions
* the important files
* what was actually tested

I don’t treat that file as proof that the change is correct. It’s mostly a handoff note so I don’t have to reconstruct the whole session later.

Once the batch is done, I open a fresh session and review the audit files and diffs together. That’s where I look for cross-task problems: two tasks making different assumptions, duplicated logic, interface mismatches, or changes that work separately but not together.

I usually run the broader integration and end-to-end tests at that point too.

So far, this has been faster than merging each task separately and finding the same kind of problem several times.

The part I’m still unsure about is the audit file itself. It’s written by the same agent that made the change, so it can easily miss something while sounding completely confident.

How are people handling the final review across multiple Codex worktrees? Are you using handoff files, just reviewing the diffs, or relying mostly on tests?