zlacker

Curious, are you doing the same planning with Codex out-of-band or otherwise? In order to have the same measurable outcome you'd need to perhaps use Codex in a plan state (there's experimental settings - not recommended) or other means (explicit detailed -reusable- prompt for planning a change). It's a missing feature if your preference is planning in CLI (I do not prefer this).

You are correct in that this mode isn't "out of the box" as it is with Claude (but I don't use it in Claude either).

My preference is to have smart models generate a plan with provided source. I wrote (with AI) a simple python tool that'll filter a codebase and let me select all files or just a subset. I then attach that as context and have a smart model with large context (usually Opus, GPT-5.2, and Gemini 3 Pro in parallel), give me their version of a plan. I then take the best parts of each plan, slap it into a single markdown and have Codex execute in a phased manner. I usually specify that the plan should be phased.

I prefer out-of-CLI planning because frankly it doesn't matter how good Codex or Claude Code dive in, they always miss something unless they read every single file and config. And if they do that, they tip over. Doing it out of band with specialized tools, I can ensure they give me a high quality plan that aligns with the code and expectations, in a single shot (much faster).

Then Claude/Codex/Gemini implement the phased plan - either all at once - or stepwise with me testing the app at each stage.

But yeah, it's not a skill issue on your part if you're used to Plan -> Implement within Claude Code. The Experimental /collab feature does this but it's not supported and more experimental than even the experimental settings.