Codex session audit asks for recurring long-run failures and workflow fixes
kevinkern · x · 2026-07-28
A prompt for analyzing /.codex/sessions over the last two weeks asks Codex to find recurring failures in long runs, especially where the user interrupted, corrected, repeated instructions, rejected work, stopped scope creep, fixed regressions, or redirected the approach.
The reply highlights one recurring pain point: Codex sometimes mistakes sandbox restrictions for bugs, then invents a workaround that leads to the very failures the analysis is supposed to surface. The author says the report is still useful for improving workflows.
Related event: Codex Session Review Exposes Agent Failure Patterns(2 posts)→
More from coding & agent
- Developers compare reusable AI agents across projects and production workflows — MediaPositive4282 · 2026-07-28
- Kimi K3 launches with 2.8T parameters, 1M context and $0.30 input pricing — togethercompute · 2026-07-28
- Moonshot AI and Together AI to explain how Kimi K3 powers production agent workflows — togethercompute · 2026-07-28
- Together AI brings Moonshot’s Kimi K3 online with 1M context and agent tools — togethercompute · 2026-07-28
- Part III benchmarks Opus 5 on SlopCodeBench in the software-factory debate — teropa · 2026-07-28
- The key to this prompt is a sub-agent blind A/B critic — mattshumer_ · 2026-07-28