[UX Improvement] Expose explicit command-first workflow in Codex task/issue handling
What variant of Codex are you using?
Codex App (Windows Desktop)
What feature would you like to see?
What variant of Codex are you using?
Desktop App (Windows)
Problem
Codex is very strong at code editing, but in real-world development tasks, many workflows require explicit command execution as part of the task itself.
Examples:
- Compare files before editing
- Run search commands (rg / find / grep)
- Execute build/test commands
- Run project-specific scripts
- Verify output after modification
Today, command execution may happen implicitly in some cases, but there is no clear “command-first” workflow exposed at the task/issue level.
This creates friction because users often need to manually do:
- Run command outside Codex
- Inspect output
- Return to Codex
- Ask Codex to continue
Requested improvement
Expose command execution as a first-class step in issue/task workflows.
Example task:
Compare OECD.resx and OECD.ja.resx, list missing keys, then update the file.
Expected workflow:
- Codex proposes commands to run
- User approves command execution
- Codex reads stdout/stderr
- Codex modifies files
- Codex runs verification command
Suggested UX
Possible UI options:
- “Run command” step inside task workflow
- Command preview before execution
- Approval / deny per command
- Show stdout/stderr in task history
- Retry / rerun command from UI
Why this matters
Many coding tasks are not edit-only.
They are:
- inspect
- compare
- search
- execute
- verify
- then edit
Making command execution an explicit part of the workflow would reduce manual context switching and improve real-world development productivity.
Safety considerations
- Per-command approval
- Sandbox-aware execution
- Read-only vs write-capable command modes
- Environment-specific support (PowerShell / cmd / bash)
This feels less like a new capability request, and more like exposing an important workflow step that developers already expect in agentic coding tools.
Additional information
_No response_
This issue has 1 comment on GitHub. Read the full discussion on GitHub ↗