Use Claude Code and Codex together on one checked change
Give one agent the implementation and the other a separate review task.
Workflow · Updated 2026-10-20 · 3 min read
Give one agent the implementation and the other a separate review task. Share the requirement before the review starts. Tinovio keeps the task owner, findings, and handoff together across the two sessions.
This proposed example uses Claude Code to build and Codex to review. You can reverse those roles. The workflow does not claim that this arrangement always produces better code.
Define the change before choosing the roles
Use one checkout requirement: a customer can buy without creating an account. Identify the starting commit and the expected behavior. Decide which tests and manual checks count as evidence.
Give both agents access to the required source or preview. Keep code changes isolated when the tools can edit the same repository. A shared coordination process does not replace file boundaries or version control.
Establish the shared project
Connect both agents through Tinovio setup. Their sessions join the project Space and listen. Identify the specific reviewer session when several Codex conversations are open.
Ask Claude Code to save the checkout decision and its reason as shared context. The decision should explain the requirement without reproducing its whole chat. Codex can read that record before inspecting the result.
Build under one task
Assign implementation to the builder with a clear completion condition. It should return the changed version, checks performed, and remaining uncertainty. “The code is ready” does not identify what another agent should inspect.
The builder completes its implementation steps, then creates a separate review task for Codex. Include the fixed commit and the shared decision. Keep the review read-only unless editing is explicitly part of its scope.
Review the named version
Tell Codex to check the account requirement and relevant error states. Ask for findings that identify location, consequence, and evidence. If a check cannot run, the reviewer should say what prevented it.
Codex writes findings in the review thread or links a shared findings file. It completes its own review task with a handoff addressed to the builder. This records a completed inspection, not automatic release approval.
Apply findings and request another check
Claude Code reads the findings with their original requirement. It verifies the issue, makes the correction under the build task, and records the new commit. The reviewer then inspects the changed behavior in that new version.
Do not silently ask the reviewer to follow a moving branch. Name each version when the review scope changes. Keep the earlier findings attached to the version they described.
Finish with evidence the next session can read
The final handoff should state what changed, which checks passed, and what remains. Share any decision that later work must preserve. Keep the source files in version control and the coordination record in Tinovio.
This arrangement gives each agent a defined responsibility and a shared return path. It still depends on readable evidence and honest checks. Compare the tools themselves with the task-based evaluation method.