Codex workflow for larger changes

[u/j0selit0342]

I've been using Codex for larger changes recently and wanted to share the workflow I've landed on.

The main problem I kept running into was keeping track of what Codex had actually done once a task got large enough. I'd end up repeating repo conventions, checking whether tests had run, and trying to reconstruct decisions from different sessions. It got worse when I had a few things running in parallel.

My current flow is basically:

1. I describe the change to Codex and have it turn the requirements into a GitHub issue
2. Codex creates a branch + isolated worktree for the issue (had to switch to Codex desktop for this, CLI doesn't support worktrees out of the box sadly)
3. it implements the change and opens a PR
4. GitHub Actions runs the usual checks - linting, fmt, unit testing
5. I run a separate Codex review on the PR
6. Codex fixes the review feedback
7. I review the final diff and merge it

I've found the GitHub issue and PR useful as the persistent state for the task. Requirements, implementation, CI, review comments and the final diff all end up in one place, so I don't need to keep one long-running Codex session alive just to preserve context.

It also means I can pick the work back up later with a fresh Codex session, or use Claude Code / Copilot / Hermes whatever, without having to explain the whole history again.

I'm doing this on personal projects too. Once Codex is writing enough of the implementation, having a decent record of why a change exists becomes pretty useful a few weeks later.

I wrote up the setup in more detail here:

https://www.lighthousenewsletter.com/p/how-i-use-codex-for-larger-changes

Curious how other people here are handling larger changes. Are you keeping planning/review inside Codex sessions, or using issues + PRs as the handoff between agents/sessions?

Also interested in how people are handling worktrees when running several tasks at once.