undefined | Better HN

0 pointsphilipbjorge1mo ago0 comments

What I found was that I *strongly* preferred Claude Code with its defaults. Codex was almost unusable to me -- It would spit out a 4-5 page plan where it kept repeating itself, where Claude would give me a crisp 1-2 pager I could actually review.

*But* I don't work with the defaults -- I work with my own prompt framework based off of superpowers.

Given sufficient prompt scaffolding, I've found the models relatively interchangeable -- _I might_ be getting some of this for free by basing my own system off of superpowers which is used across various harnesses -- In other words achieving this kind of portability may be a lot harder than it looks and I'm benefiting from other people's work.

0 comments

3 comments · 2 top-level

threatripper1mo ago· 1 in thread

I lack a bit of context. Can you point me to a place that explains what you use?

philipbjorgeOP1mo ago

I haven't really shared what I use, I'm still deciding if that's something I want to do.

To get an idea of what I'm talking about, you could install https://github.com/obra/superpowers/ into both Codex and Claude Code -- You'll find that the behavior is remarkably similar if you A/B compare them on the same problems. CC occasionally misses things that Codex gets and vice versa.

Overall the output structure and final code is remarkably similar... Which is pretty different than if you just run them with their default system prompts. I'd throw codex out the window with its default outputs.

fooster1mo ago

The problem I ran into was, using the workflow I use with claude, the code that being written wasn't good, missing edged cases, incomplete.

After reviewing the code, I also found it was annoying to get GPT 5.4 to actually fix the code based on my prompts compared with opus. I had to be far more specific and direct (which is related then to missing edge cases, complete, etc).

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse