Codex default behavior leaks through explicit repo instructions and gated workflows

What version of the Codex App are you using (From “About Codex” dialog)?

26.602.71036

What subscription do you have?

Codex Pro Lite

What platform is your computer?

Microsoft Windows NT 10.0.26200.0 x64

What issue are you seeing?

Codex appears to sometimes let default behavior leak through explicit repository instructions and mechanically gated workflows.

The repository instructions define strict behavior for planning, file reads, tool use, QA, approvals, recovery after compaction, and bounded reads. Codex can read and acknowledge these instructions, but at execution time it sometimes falls back to default behavior instead of following the gate.

One clear example is post-compaction recovery. The instructions required bounded reads, latest-entry-only recovery, and current-state section reads. Codex recognized the recovery process, but still read much larger portions of files than necessary, as if “read broadly to be safe” overrode the explicit bounded-read rule.

This also happens outside recovery workflows. Similar failures can occur during QA, planning, file edits, or other gated processes where Codex acknowledges a rule but then skips, weakens, or fails to apply it during tool use.

What steps can reproduce the bug?

1. Create repository instructions that define a strict gated process, such as bounded reads, approval gates, full QA gates, or stop-before-acting rules.
2. Ask Codex to perform work that should follow that gated process.
3. Observe that Codex reads or acknowledges the instructions.
4. Continue into the actual tool-use or execution step.
5. In some cases, Codex falls back to default behavior, such as broad file reads, lighter QA, skipped gates, or premature action.

What is the expected behavior?

When repository instructions define gated behavior, Codex should treat those instructions as active operating constraints during execution, not just context to summarize.

If a gate says bounded read only, full QA required, approval required, or stop before acting, Codex should follow that mechanically unless the user explicitly changes the scope.

Additional information

This makes mechanical gates unreliable. It wastes context, increases drift risk, can trigger avoidable compaction loops, and makes long-running repo workflows harder to trust.

The issue is not that instructions are missing. The instructions are present and acknowledged. The problem is that Codex can still fail to apply them at the exact execution moment where they matter most.