Codex is now in the ChatGPT mobile app

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

OpenAI’s Codex coding agent is now accessible through the ChatGPT mobile app, letting users remotely drive Codex sessions running on their desktop or via the CLI to review, generate, and refactor code from a phone. Commenters compare it heavily to Anthropic’s Claude Code, generally praising Codex for speed, reliability, and cost while noting limits on free usage, occasional bugs, and missing Linux polish. Many see mobile access as a powerful way to keep long-running coding tasks moving, though some worry it encourages constant availability, weak code review practices on small screens, and broader “vibe coding” without inspecting what the agent actually changes.

Access, Pricing, and Limits

  • Many note Codex is available on the free ChatGPT plan, but experiences vary: some hit limits after only a couple of “useful” requests, others say they rarely see caps even on high-effort 5.5.
  • Confusion over model access: some insist free users get 5.5 Extra High, others say free is “definitely worse” and lacks the full model set.
  • Several compare costs with Claude: Codex is often perceived as cheaper and with higher usable limits, while Claude’s $20 plan is described as restrictive and opaque in usage accounting.

Codex vs Claude and Other Tools

  • Multiple commenters say 5.5 (Extra High) is at least comparable to, or better than, Claude Opus 4.7 for code, especially for backends and complex web apps.
  • Codex is praised as faster, less “lazy,” better at context management and compaction, and cheaper per unit of work.
  • Claude is still preferred by some for tone, “human” writing, and front-end/UX suggestions; a hybrid workflow emerges: Claude for UI mockups, Codex for implementation.
  • Some remain unimpressed by all LLMs or by Codex Cloud in particular, calling it underpowered and too locked down (no model choice).

Remote Control & Mobile Experience

  • New mobile integration is widely seen as useful for:
    • Steering or approving plans while away from a keyboard.
    • Unblocking or redirecting long-running agent tasks.
  • Reliability is mixed: some say it “just works” and is far better than Claude’s Remote Control; others report flaky connections, missing messages, or failure to connect, especially across devices or on Windows/Linux.
  • Several already achieve similar workflows with Tailscale/SSH/tmux/terminal apps and see this as a more convenient, single-tool alternative.

Workflows, “Vibe Coding,” and Productivity

  • A recurring pattern: “vibe coding” from a phone—guiding agents on a known codebase without constantly inspecting code—then doing serious review and testing later at a desktop.
  • Some find mobile coding ergonomically and cognitively worse (shorter prompts, more ambiguity, more tech debt); others lean on long prompts, voice-to-text, or custom workflows to mitigate this.
  • There is tension between enthusiasm for “work from anywhere” and concern that this encourages 24/7 availability and erodes boundaries.

Platforms, Tooling, and Integration

  • macOS Codex app is first-class; Windows support is “coming soon”; Linux users rely on CLI, repackaged desktop builds, or third-party wrappers.
  • CLI/desktop integration details (e.g., codex remote-control, SSH to Linux boxes, compilation times, LTO configuration) are discussed but remain somewhat fragmented and, for Windows especially, described as “buggy” or unclear.

Concerns and Skepticism

  • Some worry about code review quality on phones and an industry-wide “de-skilling” via blind trust in agent-generated changes.
  • Others dislike giving a mobile app (plus an LLM) the ability to execute arbitrary commands on their machines, preferring repo-based diff workflows instead.
  • A minority question OpenAI’s overall product strategy, while acknowledging its software polish relative to competitors.