Performance regression on Windows 10 + PowerShell 7 after upgrading from 0.130 to 0.131

Open 💬 3 comments Opened Jun 3, 2026 by EliuGit

What version of Codex CLI is running?

0.131

What subscription do you have?

pro

Which model were you using?

gpt5.4

What platform is your computer?

window 10 LSTC

What terminal emulator and version are you using (if applicable)?

Windows Terminal (PowerShell7)

Codex doctor report

What issue are you seeing?

After upgrading codex-cli from 0.130 to 0.131, I noticed a clear performance regression on Windows.

On my setup (Windows 10 + PowerShell 7), version 0.130 feels almost instant, while 0.131 consistently
introduces about a 5-second delay in common interactions.

What steps can reproduce the bug?

### Environment

  • OS: Windows 10
  • Shell: PowerShell 7 (pwsh)
  • codex-cli:
  • 0.130: fast / almost instant
  • 0.131: noticeably slower

### Observed regressions

  1. Startup latency
  • In 0.130, launching codex-cli is almost instant.
  • In 0.131, startup takes around 5 seconds.
  1. Returning from editor (Ctrl+G -> nvim)
  • In 0.130, after opening the context in nvim, saving, and exiting, the input box returns almost immediately.
  • In 0.131, it takes around 5 seconds before the input box becomes usable again.

### Steps to reproduce

  1. Open pwsh on Windows 10.
  2. Launch codex-cli.
  3. Compare the startup time between 0.130 and 0.131.
  4. In codex-cli, press Ctrl+G to open the context in nvim.
  5. Save and exit nvim.
  6. Compare how long it takes to return to the input prompt between 0.130 and 0.131.

### Expected behavior

Interactions should remain as responsive as in 0.130:

  • near-instant startup
  • near-instant return to the input box after exiting nvim

### Actual behavior

In 0.131, both actions above take about 5 seconds on my machine.

### Notes

This looks like a regression introduced between 0.130 and 0.131, at least on Windows 10 with PowerShell 7.

If needed, I can provide more environment details or do more testing.

What is the expected behavior?

_No response_

Additional information

_No response_

View original on GitHub ↗

This issue has 3 comments on GitHub. Read the full discussion on GitHub ↗