Codex vs planning-with-files
Side-by-side comparison of two AI agent tools
Codexopen-source
Lightweight coding agent that runs in your terminal
p
planning-with-filesopen-source
Persistent file-based planning for AI coding agents and long-running tasks. Crash-proof markdown plans, session recovery after /clear and compaction, per-turn r
Metrics
| Codex | planning-with-files | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 127.4k | 27.2k |
| Star velocity /mo | 9.5k | 2.3k |
| Commits (90d) | 3.7k | 237 |
| Releases (6m) | 10 | 10 |
| Overall score | 0.9477170428079889 | 0.8039568963116691 |
Pros
- +Runs locally on your machine, providing better privacy and control over your code
- +Seamless integration with existing ChatGPT subscriptions without requiring separate API setup
- +Multiple deployment options including CLI, IDE extensions, desktop app, and web access
Cons
- -Requires ChatGPT Plus/Pro subscription or separate API key setup for full functionality
- -Limited documentation suggests the tool may still be in early development stages
Use Cases
- •Terminal-based coding assistance for developers who prefer command-line workflows
- •Local AI code generation and debugging while maintaining code privacy
- •Integrated development workflow across multiple environments (terminal, IDE, desktop)
FAQ
- Which is more popular, Codex or planning-with-files?
- Codex has more GitHub stars (127,411 vs 27,205).
- Which is more actively developed, Codex or planning-with-files?
- Codex had more commits in the last 90 days (3,730 vs 237).
- Should I use Codex or planning-with-files?
- Compare their capabilities, limitations and "best for" notes above. Both are open source, so trying each on a small task is the fastest way to decide.