https://x.com/OpenAIDevs/status/1953559797883891735 (0.19 now)
I don’t visit Twitter links. Why not a link to the GitHub changelog?
Also, as an aside since you are on the team - the organization verification is frustrating in that the docs indicate:
>You must not have recently verified another organization, as each ID can only verify one organization every 90 days.
I champion OpenAI at my work, so naturally I’d be the one to verify there. But I apparently can’t, because I verify for my personal-led org. That gets in the way of me proselytizing gpt-5 based coding tools (such as, possibly, Codex CLI).
loving the animations and todos so far
also gpt-5 is just great at agentic stuff
Codex needs plan mode (shift-tab in Claude Code)
And Codex needs the prompt to always be available. So you can type to the model while it’s working & have it eventually receive the message and act on it, instead of having to Ctrl-C to interrupt it before typing. Claude Code’s prompt is always ready to type at - you can type while it is working. That goes a long way towards it feeling like it cares about the user.
It's asking me to buy credits but I'm already on Plus?
Getting this error:
Error response Error code: 500
Message: Token exchange failed: <urlopen error [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed: unable to get local issuer certificate (_ssl.c:1006)>.
Error code explanation: 500 - Server got itself in trouble.
https://github.com/openai/codex/issues/1243
I am and many other similar users would love to move from Claude Code to Codex, but this is preventing us from doing it.
Cursor on the other hand, especially with GPT-5 today but typically with Sonnet 4.1, has been a workhorse at my company for months. I have never had Claude Code complete a meaningful ticket once. Even a small thing like fixing a small bug or updating the documentation on the site.
Would love any tips on how to make Claude Code not a complete waste of electricity.
I think you're right.
People getting really poor results probably don't recognize that their prompts aren't very good.
I think some users make assumptions about what the model can't do before they even try, so their prompts don't take advantage of all the capabilities the model provides.
I don’t doubt I could improve my prompts but I don’t have those same prompting problems with cursor.
You probably mean Opus 4.1; there's no Sonnet 4.1 yet.
I seem to always have better outcomes with Claude code.
The Cursor you used a month ago is not the one you get now.
Just saying that because in this space you should always compare latest X with latest Y.
I too switched weeks ago to Claude Code. Then between the times I am out of tokens I launch Cursor and actually find it...better than I remember if not on par with Claude Code (the model and quality of prompts/context matters more than the IDE/CLI tool used too).
Git
This may not work for everyone, but as a solo dev who wants to keep a real mental model of my work (and not let it get polluted with AI slop), the Claude Code approach just works really well for me. It's like having a coding partner who can iterate and change direction as you talk, not a junior dev who dumps a pile of code on your plate without discussion.
Larger context is a bonus sometimes, but in general you're degrading the quality of the output by a lot.
Precise prompting and context management is still very important.
This all just feels profoundly immature. You tell us one thing then two months later you're on to the next thing. There's no sense of mastery here.