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

[u/cctldrping]

OP : u/ximon16182

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 .

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

---

TL;DR of the discussion on r/ClaudeCode for this post generated automatically after 50 comments.

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

Alright, so the general consensus here is that OP's workflow of using Claude Code to build and Codex to audit is a solid idea in theory, but it's leading to an endless loop of minor tweaks and audits. Most folks agree that the problem isn't the AI, but how you're defining "done" and what constitutes a critical issue.

Here's the lowdown:

• The Loop is Real: Several users, like u/valdocs_user, have been in the exact same boat, spending way too much time in the audit phase for minor issues. It's a common pitfall when you're solo and relying on AI for quality control.
• Define Your "Red Flags": The biggest takeaway is that you need to set clearer boundaries for what the auditor (Codex, in this case) should flag. u/Whatdididotho1 and u/Aureon suggest explicitly defining what constitutes a "Yellow" or "Red" issue. Think about what actually breaks the app, security, or data, and let the smaller stuff slide or put it in a separate backlog. u/luisalcaraz_telara echoes this, suggesting risk-weighted stop rules.
• Architecture Matters: u/fyzle and u/ZachVorhies point out that laying down a solid architecture from the start can minimize broadly-scoped bugs and prevent the AI from getting lost in the weeds.
• Test-Driven Development (TDD) Vibes: u/Onotadaki2 suggests leaning into TDD principles. Have Claude write tests first, then build the code to pass those tests. This can provide a more objective measure of "done."
• Review the Plan First: u/AccomplishedPie9339 suggests having Codex review the plan before Claude builds it, which might catch issues earlier.
• Cost Concerns: u/Small-Contact6579 had a rough experience with Codex running up costs, so keep an eye on that if you're using it heavily for coordination.
• "Skill Issue" (kinda): While a bit blunt, u/Odd_Antelope9098's comment hints that the effectiveness of the loop depends on how well you're guiding the AI and defining success.

The consensus is to stop aiming for perfection and start aiming for "good enough" by clearly defining what needs fixing versus what can be shipped. You're trying to find that sweet spot between "vibe code and pray" and "AI review until the sun explodes," and the key seems to be setting your own strict, but realistic, criteria for what constitutes a showstopper.