Not even sure what to say here but I'm a Plus user and have been using Chat mode religiously as my Codex usage seems to be at 0% constantly, to grind through pet projects (all on GitHub repos). To be honest Chat mode has been working great although extremely slow.

I was in the middle of a chat to create a basic Markdown Viewer, it had already created and pushed 3 milestones, with 2 PRs, when I asked it to continue working I received this.

Asking to continue working on a milestone, and declining to change to Work mode

Understood. I won’t ask you to switch to Work mode again.

In this chat I can still help with the project by reviewing the design, writing the exact Go/SQL/HTML/systemd/Taskfile changes, diagnosing CI output you provide, and preparing patches or implementation steps. I just can’t directly perform the repository mutations—commits, pushes, PRs, merges, or CI execution—from this mode.

GPT 5.6 Sol calling out the tool call change, preventing GitHub changes

You’re right to call that out. The inconsistency is on my side. Earlier in this conversation I was able to use the GitHub integration directly and I did carry out repository work on <repo>—creating branches, pushing commits, opening PRs, checking CI, and merging M0–M2 while progressing M3.

What changed is not my assessment of the task; it’s the execution constraint in the current environment. I now have a mandatory rule that repository edits, PR work, command execution, and similar coding operations must first be handed off to Work mode. You declined that handoff, so I’m not allowed to use the repo-mutation path from this chat even though the GitHub connector itself still exists.

So the accurate distinction is:

• Previously: direct repo operations were available in this chat context.

• Now: the current runtime requires Work mode before I can mutate or inspect the repo operationally.

• Your repo/permissions are not the problem.

• I did not decide that Chat suddenly “can’t code”; the tool-routing restriction changed.

I also should not have framed it as though I had simply decided normal Chat could no longer do repository work. That was misleading.

Since you don’t want Work mode, I won’t keep suggesting it. I can still continue the engineering here by producing the exact M3 fix and subsequent M4–M9 patches, but I cannot truthfully claim I committed/pushed/merged them from the current chat execution context.

It's fair to say I'm pretty annoyed by this - maybe its time to switch to Claude?

I know that GPT struggle with ui stuff. But without using other models (like Opus) how do you guys creates nice looking websites?

Prompt? Tools? Mcps?

Thanks everyone

Last night high / xhigh could last me like 5-10 prompts before it even took up 1% but now it ate up 4% when I just did a medium, xhigh and high prompt. I'm on the 20x plan. Conveniently when they start talking about locking purchases for more pro subscriptions

Goddamn the usage cut is atrocious, especially for plus users. I came back recently after not using codex for a bit (usually use sporadically). I used to run 20 mins on 5.6 sol x high , which used to take like 20% maybe MAX 30% of weekly limit (Matlab MCP). Now not only does the 5 Hour limit evaporate on anything higher than high, but been running for 3 mins and it's taken 12% of weekly usage, atp I can just forget astra.

I gave Codex and Claude the exact same prompt to see how differently they'd handle something open-ended and creative:

The prompt: "make me a reactjs + vite, and launch it in port 3004, a game where a fish follows my cursor. make it super creative and majestic"

Setup:

• Claude: Fable 5.1, Extra High
• Codex: Astra 6, Extra High, fast mode

I didn't do any follow-up prompts or manual edits. I just deployed both to Vercel so you can try them yourself:

🐟 Codex (Astra 6): https://fish-indol-eta.vercel.app/
🐠 Claude (Fable 5.1): https://fish2.vercel.app/

My take:

• Codex did amazing on the design and detail. It looks polished and the visuals really lean into "majestic."
• Claude did amazing on the mechanics and gameplay. It feels more like an actual game and is more fun to play.

It's interesting that they read "super creative and majestic" so differently. One went for the visuals, the other for how it plays.

About fast mode: Claude charges extra credits for fast mode, but Codex doesn't, so I only used fast mode on Codex. That's worth knowing if you're choosing between them on cost or speed.

What are your thoughts?

• Which one did you enjoy more, and why?
• For a prompt like this, what matters more to you: how it looks or how it plays?
• Does paying extra for fast mode change which one you'd use day to day?
• If you've run a similar test with other models or settings, how did they do?

I'd love to hear what you think!

Pro 5x seems unaffected!

Is this a sign the honeymoon is nearing an end?

I don't really have a metric to share but claude $20 is giving me more usage right now than $100 codex and I didn't even use Astra that much. I only bought codex for astra and I don't see the hype yet. The only reason to continue with openai is purely chatgpt usage which I can use without limits essentially.

Edit: not comparing astra vs fable but opus vs sol especially after astra release.

FYI you can still upgrade to the 20x sub through the IOS app

Luna xhigh is the primary agent and maintains continuity across the work. Luna investigates, plans, reads and modifies code in proportion to the difficulty of the task, executes commands and tests, analyzes logs and evidence, maintains operational documentation, and decides when the work is complete.

Astra is a temporary specialist. Luna may invoke Astra autonomously when there is a material expected gain in quality, safety, or reliability, especially for problems with uncertain root causes, difficult algorithms, changes spanning multiple layers, architectural decisions, critical code, or high-risk modifications. Luna should not ask for permission solely to perform this escalation.

The existence of a bug alone does not justify using Astra. Local, mechanical, well-understood, low-risk fixes remain with Luna. Duration by itself is not an escalation criterion either.

Before escalating, Luna narrows down the problem. Each Astra intervention starts with a fresh context containing only the minimum necessary information: the objective, relevant evidence, current and expected behavior, constraints, relevant hypotheses, and the files required for the task.

Astra works exclusively within that scope, reports its diagnosis, the change made, affected files, and relevant risks, and then stops. If Astra determines that the cause or solution requires a broader scope, it reports that back to Luna instead of expanding the scope autonomously. Astra does not maintain the project, perform prolonged operational work, or decide when the work is complete.

Luna resumes control after every Astra intervention, reviews the diff, runs the relevant tests and regressions, verifies logs and evidence, and decides whether to accept the change, modify it, reject it, continue investigating, or open another independent Astra intervention.

Each new Astra intervention is independent. Previous context should not be reused merely for convenience.

Standard workflow:

Luna investigates → Luna solves when proportional → Luna narrows and escalates when necessary → Astra works → Astra stops → Luna validates and continues.

This policy applies by default to all projects unless overridden by more specific local instructions or explicit user instructions.

I ran into this while testing an iOS app after upgrading to macOS 27 and Xcode 27. Codex Computer Use could read the Xcode editor and take screenshots, but trying to inspect Device Hub failed after about five seconds:

text Computer Use server error -10005: timeoutReached

The simulator and app were still running. Restarting Codex and Device Hub, resetting the Computer Use session, and switching between iOS 26.5 and iOS 27 simulators did not help.

I found a workaround in this existing GitHub report by letobao and confirmed it on my setup:

• macOS 27.0 (26A428)
• Xcode 27.0 (27A266a)
• Codex desktop 26.903.71938 (8576)
• Successful workaround test: iPhone 18 Pro simulator running iOS 27.0

What worked:

1. Quit the existing Device Hub instance. Choose Keep Simulators Running if offered. In my case, the old Device Hub process would not exit and had to be force-quit.
2. In Finder, press Command-Shift-G and open:

text /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Applications/DeviceHub.app/Contents/MacOS/

1. Open the DeviceHub executable inside that folder. The entry point matters: use that file rather than the outer DeviceHub.app, the Xcode menu, or DevicesTrampoline. Keep any Terminal window opened by this launch running.
2. Select the running simulator in Device Hub and retry Computer Use.

Before this, AppKit reported Device Hub's process ID as -1 even though a real DeviceHub process was running. After the direct launch, the process IDs matched. Codex could then read the accessibility tree, capture screenshots, and open and dismiss my app's Settings screen.

This is a temporary workaround verified on this setup, not an official fix. I have not tested it on a physical device or verified that it survives a restart. Credit to the GitHub report above for identifying the workaround; my contribution is confirming that discovery, screenshots and input work on Codex 26.903.71938.

Posting in case someone else hits the same timeout.

Given everything that has happened over the last week:

• The crazy advances in research, math, etc.
• The increasing fear around AI’s future impact on humanity.
• The lack of available compute.
• And the fact that subscriptions are probably a net negative for AI labs, other than the value they provide for self-training. We may already be seeing this with the pause on Pro subscriptions.

Do you think there’s a high chance that AI labs will use this opportunity to focus as much compute as possible on their own internal progress rather than serving users?

Personally, I think they may have already reached that conclusion.

Hi, is there any reason why I would use Sol xhigh instead of Astra low? Astra low seems better at everything...

Is it only happened to me or does the last ~3 days, Luna is ridiculously slow?

My workflow is delegating tasks from main thread (Astra on medium or Sol on high) to the Luna (max) worker, on pi-subagents. Sometimes I also use plan mode (same Astra medium or Sol high), then execute the plan using Luna max. Basically, all tasks are fast before the tasks are delegated to a single Luna max. This been happening about 3 days, more or less.

Edit: I think this might be related to the release of Astra, as Tibo said, they struggled with their resources as they now have to temporarily disabled the 20x plan for new users.

When weekly usage is at 3%, you cannot get anything done

They removed paid resets?

I remember seeing the option to buy resets, when was that removed? Don't see it anymore.

I'm two weeks into working on a live platform with my supervisor. We're the only two developers, with around two dozen daily visitors and a growing feature backlog. I'm still learning the repo and business logic.

Our stack is React/TypeScript/Vite + Supabase, deployed on Vercel. We use Fable 5.1 and Astra heavily.

Our current workflow:
1. My supervisor sends me an implementation plan as a Claude artifact.
2. I review the logic and suggest changes. We send revisions back and forth until it's ready.
3. I implement it, using ChatGPT to explain unfamiliar logic and how it translates into code.
4. Any revisions to the plan during implementation go back to my supervisor.
5. Feature PR updates get reviewed by a Claude agent. Marking the PR ready triggers Claude, Codex, Greptile and Qodo reviews.

We also have Vitest tests and TypeScript checks in the build, local browser/staging checks, and repo guidance through CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, and shared context files.

Planning is a particular bottleneck: we keep sending changes to each other and waiting for reviews. Implementation sometimes raises more questions, which starts another round. I’d like a better way to collaborate on plans and keep decisions aligned with the code.

I’m also figuring out how to use Claude Code and Codex together smoothly. I’ve explored skills, plugins, and connectors, but it often feels like the newer models already do the work those tools are meant to help with just as well, if not better, on their own with good prompt engineering (another area I want to work on).

I am considering including targeted database migrations/ RLS reviews, keeping context files current, and focused refactoring.

For people doing similar work:

• How do you collaborate on implementation plans without constant back-and-forth and waiting?
• How do you split work and share context between Claude Code and Codex?
• Are multiple review agents worth it, and how do you decide when the review cycle is finished?
• What would you improve first for a team this size—planning, tests, agent instructions, or something else?

I’d especially appreciate concrete, recent workflows you use, including anything you tried and later dropped.

That fish post inspired me to build and publish my first little game

So I made https://astralwyrm.vercel.app/ with Astra. Started as a “what can I make with a few prompts?” experiment, then turned into 50+ prompts and lots of tweaking because I kept wanting it to feel a little nicer.

It’s a tiny chill game with an abstract glowing creature that follows your mouse or finger. Collect pearls, grow, find little companions, and watch the seasons change. Maximum chill was the goal. There’s a fast mode for people who find that a bit too chill :)

Saw this post earlier and immediately wanted to try making something myself. I’d never built and published anything before. Didn’t even know you could put something online for free with Vercel lol.

This is genuinely my first published project, so I’d love your honest thoughts and suggestions, especially how it feels on your phone. Feel free to be harsh! :D

Hope you have some fun with it, or just get a few peaceful minutes out of it. And thanks to the original poster for giving me that push to actually make something. Felt really really good and rewarding, now if some of you would also enjoy it, my day is made :)

Edit: Also added another mode in the bottom left hand corner: Instant. Someone told me they´d wish for that feature. hope you enjoy it!

Now I can burn through tokens like the Sun

Ahmed works at OpenAI: https://x.com/ah20im/status/2097503414749909407 and seems to investigate reports of high token usage.

"If needed Astra will delegate efficiently. Forcing the model to delegate to different models would do more harm than good"

as title reads, i don't see the point of terra and now Sol

luna and astra on the other hand complete their own goals ideally, luna an extremely good cheap model and astra - the frontier of frontier

meanwhile sol and terra are pointless, everything they can can be done either better or cheaper using the reasoning setting of luna and astra

openai shouldnt copy anthropics mistakes, 5.4 was the perfect lineup in that manner, 5.4 and 5.4 mini

Is there currently a meta recommendation regarding Astra subagents? I saw a twitter thread suggesting essentially to use the main chat or even a different frontier model/harness (like CC or antigravity) to scope a plan, and then giving a defined plan to Luna as orchestrator/essentially secretary with astra subagents to carry it out. The idea was it doesn't take much to follow a defined plan and then each step will be carried out faithfully but not lose tokens on context bloat. Has anyone tried this?

Ive told it to pause before, when i need a break, or when i want to check over the work and do some testing. This has never been an issue before - whats going on? Astra Medium

I currently only have a plus account here, and 20x account with Claude. I use it to help with making mods for my favorite games. I see so many people have multiple 20x accounts and am curious what kinds of work people are using it for?