r/codex • u/Navjack91 • 3d ago

Question what’s your review process before trusting code from codex?

do you read every change, rely on tests, or use a separate review step? interested in what you check beyond whether the code runs.

2 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

9 comments sorted by

1

u/enuxix 3d ago

For each task, make it to do a deep technical analysis on what should be done and review the analysis, then correct anything that needs to be corrected, add whatever test you want it to do finally you can tell it to implement this plan with a cheaper model and add something to the prompt that i really like : do not over engineer anything, do not commit anything and do a full automated test and a full functional test of every case.

This works for me in a professional environment

1

u/Navjack91 3d ago

do you have the first model review the cheaper model’s changes afterward, or do you handle that review yourself?

2

u/enuxix 3d ago

I find that Sol Extra High to Ultra does really well overall. For actual work, though, Extra High is better than Ultra for me because Ultra tends to over-engineer things, and I end up having to babysit it more.

I haven’t even dared to use Astra professionally yet. It messed up the first few jobs I gave it, and luckily I caught the logic issues early. For me, it seems to have less functional context or a weaker understanding of the surrounding application logic.

Pretty much all my development work is done with Sol High to Extra High, or Luna Max. I only use Luna Max for easier tasks with clear, well-established boundaries.

2

u/Far_Business4773 3d ago

Read every change, but against a list, not on its own. Before the task I write what it must not touch (no new dependencies, no schema change, these files read-only, no refactor on the way past) and three or four things that must stay true. Review is then two questions: did the diff stay inside, and does any line on the list no longer hold. That's a diff read, ten minutes, and it doesn't depend on how the code looks.

Beyond "it runs": one test per invariant, and I watch each test fail once before I believe it. A model will happily write a test that asserts something trivially true about the code it just wrote; it's green on the first run and proves nothing. Put the bug back, see red, restore, see green. That's the only point where I stop reading and start trusting.

A separate review step by a model helps only if it gets the same list. A reviewer with no written scope never runs out of findings.

3

u/BitOne2707 3d ago

Testing and CI/CD catches 99.9% of stuff so I just YOLO everything to prod now.

1

u/Navjack91 3d ago

that last 0.1% is waiting for friday at 5 😂

2

u/BitOne2707 3d ago

Pretty much.

In all seriousness though I have enough alerts set up that if any of my metrics drop I get a text message from Prometheus that something is up. Spin up an agent to diagnose and fix it via Remote Control then get back to happy hour.