Another AI tool means another handoff
You might plan a feature in Claude and build it in Codex. That can be useful, but the second tool does not know every reason behind the first tool's decisions. If a plausible draft contains a wrong assumption, the next step may build on it.
Suppose 'make sign-up simpler' becomes 'skip email verification' in a summary. Codex may treat that sentence as an implementation requirement. Discovering the mistake in the finished screen means revising both the plan and the code. Comparing the draft with the original request before handing it over is easier.
Read the work before you pass it on
The final result is not the only thing worth reviewing. Briefly inspect requirements summaries, screen drafts, code changes, and test results whenever they become inputs to the next step. You do not need to polish every sentence. Focus on details that could change the direction of the work.
- Requirements summary: Does the goal and definition of done match the original request? Are any constraints missing?
- Design or draft: Which decisions are settled, and which are still assumptions?
- Code or document changes: Do the actual changes match the agreed scope? Is anything unexpected included?
- Verification: Which tests actually ran and passed? Is unverified work described as complete?
A Codex and Claude workflow
The useful habit is not merely having one AI check another. It is reading each result against your criteria and evidence before it becomes the next input. Constraints kept only in an earlier conversation are especially easy to lose when switching tools.
Consider a sign-up feature whose original requirement is 'a user must confirm their email before signing in, and their session must survive a refresh.' If Claude's draft omits email confirmation, restore that constraint before passing the draft to Codex. If Codex later reports 'done' but only checked the refresh, email confirmation remains unverified. This is an illustrative scenario, not a claim about a customer project.
The handoff note can be brief: 'Accepted requirement: email confirmation required. Verified: refresh in the same browser. Not verified: sign-in blocked before confirmation; sign-in on another device. Next: test both paths.' It carries the result and the gap together.
- Have Claude draft the requirements and screen flow. Review missing constraints and invented decisions, then correct the draft.
- Give the reviewed draft to Codex for implementation. Ask for changed files and tests actually run, then compare the diff with the definition of done.
- If useful, ask Claude to review the implementation. Check its findings against the code and reproducible behavior.
- Fix remaining issues and confirm the final behavior yourself. Do not base a release decision only on an AI saying 'done'.
Ask four questions at every checkpoint
If the answers are vague, revise the artifact before moving on. This short review can prevent rework and improve the quality of the result.
- Goal: What problem does this artifact solve, and what counts as done?
- Evidence: Which statements are verified facts, and which are AI assumptions?
- Changes: What was omitted from or added to the original request?
- Next step: What must be checked before another AI or session takes over?
A review prompt you can reuse
Ask the AI that made the draft or code change for this summary, then compare its answer with the source yourself. A review summary is not proof that the work has been verified.
Help me review this intermediate artifact before I hand it to another AI. Summarize: 1. The original goal and definition of done 2. What you created and changed 3. Facts and tests actually verified versus remaining assumptions 4. Decisions omitted from or added to the original request 5. What I need to check before the next step Do not call unverified work complete. Include the relevant file or document locations.
Carry your review into the next session
A review loses value if its decisions disappear before the next AI or session starts. Keep the version you accepted, what you changed, and what remains risky beside the result so you do not have to make the same judgment again.
Wellnote lets you save selected artifacts and prompts from Codex and Claude Code, then find those records later. Save a reviewed intermediate result with the reason for your changes and retrieve it when work continues. Connecting a tool does not automatically collect every conversation; you choose what to save.
The web beta currently uses referral codes for sign-up. Start by checking how to connect your AI, then save one artifact you reviewed today.