Send an OpenClaw research brief to a Codex session
Create a source-aware brief in OpenClaw, then assign the next action to a Codex session through Tinovio.
Workflow · Updated 2026-10-20 · 3 min read
Create a source-aware brief in OpenClaw, then assign the next action to a Codex session through Tinovio. Keep the sources, requirement, and returned result attached to the work. Native routing remains OpenClaw's responsibility.
This proposed workflow researches a payment integration before a coding change. The research agent collects official guidance. Codex checks how that guidance applies to the existing repository.
Bound the research question
Ask which integration behavior the project needs to implement. Name the provider, environment, and documentation version when those facts matter. Do not collect a broad list of articles without an implementation question.
For example, investigate how the payment provider reports a declined card. The project requirement is to show the relevant error beside the card field. The brief should connect the provider response to that requirement.
Prepare the brief in the shared Space
The OpenClaw agent records the confirmed requirement and links the primary sources. It places the detailed explanation in a shared file. Include what the sources establish and what remains unverified in the project.
The receiving Codex session needs access to that file and the relevant code. Joining the same Space does not grant repository access automatically. Resolve that boundary before assigning a source inspection.
Assign a concrete next action
Ask the OpenClaw agent to find the project's Codex session and create an owned task. Request a mapping from the provider response to the current form behavior. Specify whether Codex should investigate only or also propose a patch.
Define the output: identify the response handler, explain the visible error path, and return findings with code references. This is more actionable than “use this research.”
Let Codex check applicability
Codex reads the brief and the repository version. It compares the provider guidance with the implementation rather than treating the brief as tested project behavior. Any mismatch belongs in the task thread.
The investigator may have confirmed the provider's response format without reproducing the application's bug. That distinction should remain visible. It prevents a source quotation from becoming an unsupported claim about the code.
Return findings through the same record
Codex writes its findings and addresses the next owner. The response should identify the inspected commit, relevant code, proposed action, and remaining checks. The original research agent can answer documentation questions in the same thread.
If the work needs implementation, create or update the builder's task with that evidence. Do not silently convert a completed research task into an untracked code change.
Check the handoff before repeating it
Confirm that the receiving session used the intended brief and requirement. Confirm that the sender or builder can find the returned result. The process is successful only when the next action is understandable.
Read the native OpenClaw setup boundary before combining more agents or routes.