Claude Code reviews Codex work on an options app
@tom_thomasson reports Claude Code acting as architect and independent reviewer while Codex implements an options-research app: 16 reviewed packages in 6 days, four returned for revisions, and mutation testing of the test suite.
x.com
Suggested prompt
Suggested prompt written by Agents In Use, not the source author. Replace bracketed inputs and review tool permissions first.
Use Codex to implement this scoped application change and Claude Code for architecture and independent review. Return findings for revision, challenge tests with mutation testing and block analysis when required inputs are missing.
Reach people exploring AI agents
See placements →Evidence at a glance
Sourced account- Source poster / publisher
- @tom_thomasson
- Original account
- Read the source ↗
- Published
- Source link checked
- Reported result
- @tom_thomasson reports 16 reviewed packages in 6 days, four returned for revisions, nine new screens and one package detecting all 102 deliberately introduced defects in mutation testing.
- Human involvement
- The poster says he supplies supervision and remains accountable. The application never places trades, and a human makes trading decisions. A release-approval procedure is not specified.
A linked account supports attribution. It does not mean we independently reproduced its result.
Report an issue with this case
Open correction emailOpens your email app with the case link included. Nothing is sent automatically.
How the agent did it
- The poster assigns architecture and independent review to Claude Code and implementation to Codex.
- The team builds and reviews packages for the options-research application; four are reportedly sent back for revisions.
- Mutation testing deliberately introduces defects to challenge the tests; the poster reports one package catching all 102 introduced defects.
@tom_thomasson describes a division of engineering work between Claude Code and Codex. Claude Code serves as architect and independent reviewer, while Codex handles implementation. The account concerns his options-research and portfolio application, not autonomous trading.
He reports 16 reviewed software packages shipped in 6 days, with four sent back for revisions. Other reported results include nine new user-facing screens, a test suite growing from 5,401 to 5,797 tests and unsized defects falling from 22 to 11. These are his figures; no repository, test logs or review records are included in the supplied capture.
The testing process includes mutation testing: deliberately introducing defects to see whether tests detect them. He says one package detected all 102 deliberately introduced defects. That is a specific reported test result, not evidence that every possible defect was found or that the application is generally reliable.
The resulting application blocks analysis when required inputs are missing instead of producing a trading recommendation from incomplete data. The poster also says it never places trades; a human makes those decisions. He discloses that ChatGPT wrote the post using accomplishments he supplied and supervised. Other departments in the same post are outside this entry's engineering focus.
Prompt
Suggested prompt (written by Agents In Use, not the author's)
Source: X · @tom_thomasson
Frequently asked questions
Which agent implemented the software?
The poster assigns implementation to Codex and architecture plus independent review to Claude Code.
Does the application place trades?
No, according to the post. It researches, evaluates and records; a human makes the actual trading decisions.
Were the software figures independently checked?
No. They are the poster’s reported results; the supplied capture does not contain repository evidence, test logs or review records.
More details
Remaining steps
- The application blocks analysis when required inputs are missing and leaves actual trading decisions to a human.
About this account
Codex handles implementation while Claude Code provides architecture and independent review. Revisions and mutation testing are reported; individual tool calls and execution permissions are not described.
Source: Scout's verbatim public X API capture, read live on 2026-10-30 and explicitly authorised as the source for this entry. Reviewed the supplied post text, author bio and media description where available; did not open X or independently inspect attachments or replies. No affiliation with the agent maker is stated in the supplied bio. Results are the poster's account, not independently reproduced. Suggested prompt written by Agents In Use; no exact task prompt is reproduced.
Credit: @tom_thomasson
Source published
Added to Agents In Use
Source checked
Tools and topics
Claude Code · Codex
Independent review · Mutation testing · Options research
Editorial completeness: 100/100. Measures documented fields, not agent performance or verified outcomes.