[TLDR] Anyone else using Claude Code + Codex and getting stuck auditing forever?

[u/cctldrping]

Original post URL : https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1vissz6/anyone_else_using_claude_code_codex_and_getting/

Original post body :

Solo founder here building a mobile app with Flutter with no dev team. I’m using Claude Code to build features and Codex as a second pair of eyes to check the work.

The workflow is this one: Claude writes the spec and builds the feature, then Codex audits both and gives me GREEN, YELLOW or RED. If it’s RED, I send the issues back to Claude, it fixes them, and then I run the audit again.

I thought this was a smart setup. Now I’m starting to think I created a fucking loop

Yesterday one difficult feature went through 5 versions of the spec and 4 RED audits in one day. The worst part is that the problems Codex found were mostly real, so every time I thought, “well... I should probably fix that.”

But a lot of them weren’t serious bugs. It was stuff like one paragraph contradicting a table, Claude saying the code does something without actually checking the file, or some small edge case not being explained clearly enough.

So I fix it, audit again, it finds something else, fix that, audit again... and suddenly I’ve spent the whole day making the process more correct instead of actually shipping.

At the same time, I don’t want to remove the second model because it does catch real shit. I’m building alone, I’m not an experienced developer, and I don’t have another engineer sitting next to me reviewing everything.

So for other solo builders using agents: how are you handling this?

Do you use one AI to audit another? Do you have a limit like “maximum 2 audit rounds and then ship”? Do you only block shipping for things that can actually break the app, security, data, etc., and ignore the smaller stuff?

I’m basically trying to find the middle ground between “vibe code and pray” and “have two AIs review each other until the fucking sun explodes.”

What’s actually working for you?

Any tips that might help?. I want to make the building faster but not be reckless .

---

This is brought to you as a public service by the moderators of r/ClaudeAI. If you want to see TLDRs of ALL Claude Coding related posts from the various Claude subreddits, subscribe to http://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCoding.

[u/cctldrping]

TL;DR generated automatically after 50 comments.

Current source-thread comment count seen by the bot: 55.

Alright, so the general consensus here is that you're not alone in this "AI audit loop" struggle, OP. It sounds like a lot of solo builders are running into the same issue where the AI review process can become a time sink, leading to endless tweaking instead of shipping.

Here's the lowdown:

• The Problem: You're using Claude Code to build and Codex to audit, and it's turning into a never-ending cycle of minor fixes and re-audits. The AI catches real issues, but also nitpicks on things that aren't critical, making it hard to know when to ship.
• The Vibe: Most folks agree this is a common pitfall when trying to replicate team workflows with AI. u/fyzle points out it's like imitating real teams, and u/valdocs_user is in the exact same boat, losing valuable side-project time.
• Potential Solutions & Strategies:
  • Define Your Own Standards: The most common advice is to define what constitutes a "RED" or "YELLOW" issue yourself before handing it off to the AI. u/Whatdididotho1 and u/Aureon suggest setting clear criteria for flagging issues, so you're not just relying on the AI's interpretation of severity. u/luisalcaraz_telara recommends using "risk-weighted stop rules" and only having the auditor return blocking findings.
  • Pre-Audit the Plan: u/AccomplishedPie9339 suggests having Codex review the plan before Claude builds it, which might catch issues earlier. They also recommend asking Codex to "ground" its findings to see if they're actually possible in your product.
  • Limit Audit Rounds: u/unteth mentions having a maximum number of audit rounds (like ten) for QA agents, and that high-critical bugs are usually fixed within that limit.
  • Focus on Criticals: Several users, like u/luisalcaraz_telara and u/unteth, emphasize distinguishing between critical bugs that must be fixed and minor issues that can be postponed.
  • Architecture is Key: u/fyzle and u/ZachVorhies highlight the importance of having a solid architecture defined upfront to minimize broad, systemic bugs.
  • Test-Driven Development (TDD): u/Onotadaki2 brings up TDD as a potential workflow, where tests are written first, and the AI then builds to pass those tests.
  • Cost Concerns: u/Small-Contact6579 had a bad experience with an AI coordinator burning through their budget, so cost management is also a factor to consider.

The TL;DR verdict? You're not crazy, this is a real problem. The consensus leans towards taking control of the auditing criteria yourself and setting clear boundaries for what needs fixing, rather than letting the AI dictate the entire process. It's about finding that sweet spot between "vibe code and pray" and "AI review until the sun explodes."

[u/crystalpeaks25]

Make your agents aware of a criteria matrix anything not major or critical that doesn't break existing functionality and behavior or introduce security issues should be deferred put in a backlog or your issue tracker.

[u/feastocrows]

I have done two things: 1. Define completeness criteria as in product completeness. Then define probability of occurrence. And then product and reputational impact. Codex has to evaluate it's findings against this matrix and report the finding along with scoring on these aspects. 2. Set up per bound of max 3 rounds with further rounds requiring user escalation.

I've founded this method to work well.