Codex workflows for Chrome and the CLI

When Codex runs in both Chrome and the CLI, the one artifact that keeps them honest is a short browser bridge note: staging URLs and credential boundaries written down beside every browser task. A Codex workflow is the operating contract around an agent run: scoped tasks, approval gates, and verification notes. Codex CLI is happy to work across both surfaces, but only the contract makes them tell the same story. Without it, a demo that sailed through Chrome and a CI run an hour later end up arguing, and the release sits blocked while two versions of the truth fight it out.

The fix is boring on purpose. Write the contract down so any reviewer can replay the run without you in the room.

Why the browser is the same run, not a second one

The browser is not a separate workflow. It is the same Codex run on a surface your CI cannot see. That gap is the whole problem.

When tool access widens to unblock senior engineers, connectors tend to multiply faster than anyone tracks who owns them. An MCP call looks harmless right up until credentials land in the transcript. Tooling moves faster than the story the repo can defend, and forks without receipts quietly eat the sprint.

So the rule is simple: browser work and CLI work have to leave the same evidence. If they do not, reviewers are stuck picking between two truths, and they will pick wrong.

Write four notes that survive the handoff

Four small artifacts cover most of the drift. None of them are clever. That is the point.

Start with the browser bridge note. Document staging URLs and credential boundaries beside every browser task, so a Chrome demo can no longer contradict a CI artifact.

Then pin the model. A casual model swap wobbles review expectations, and the failure looks like tool quality when it is really a missing contract. Pin the default model and the escalation rule inside AGENTS.md so leads can reason about blast radius on both surfaces.

Keep a connector roster too. Each server widens blast radius, and connectors that pile up quietly erode least privilege. A Markdown roster checked into the repo root means security reviews start grounded instead of guessing.

Last, cap AGENTS.md with a definition of done, ten lines or fewer, at the top of the file. Left unchecked, the file grows and Codex starts optimizing the wrong "done."

# AGENTS.md verification snippet

- Every Codex CLI run ends with the transcript snippet reviewers can replay.
- Pair browser evidence with the project's normal CLI checks before merge.
- If MCP servers are enabled, list allowed actions beside each connector name.

The drills for both surfaces live under CLI workflows.

Give the reviewer something to check against

A reviewer should not have to reconstruct intent. Hand them a table of gates and a short checklist, and the review starts grounded.

Pair that with a PR proof checklist the author fills in before review:

• MCP connectors mentioned (if any) list owners.
• Verification command output is pasted or linked.
• Forked agent work lists parent + child responsibilities.
• Red-folder paths received explicit human acknowledgement.

Tool mechanics sit upstream of all this. The Codex CLI docs, features page, and slash commands reference describe what the agent can do, the Codex CLI docs sets up a machine, and the openai/codex and OpenAI Plugins repository repositories track releases. Architecture judgement stays human. Agents speed up execution, not ownership.

Try it on one flow

Pick your last Chrome demo and the CI run that followed it, and put them side by side. If they disagree, write the browser bridge note for that one staging flow before the next demo books a release slot.