Skip to content

Codex Collaboration Record

Build Week day one

Codex was used to inspect repository history and refs, determine the cutoff from commit timestamps, inventory tracked/untracked/release artifacts, run the practical test suite, trace the current incident pipeline, audit public-release risks, and draft the Guardian Review architecture and strict schema.

No child screenshot, family message, credential, evidence export, or production database was submitted to an external model as part of this work. The baseline tests use repository fixtures and synthetic scenarios. No Guardian Review runtime call was made.

Evidence and review discipline

  • Baseline claims are tied to Git hashes, timestamps, tracked files, tests, or existing release evidence.
  • Planned functionality is labeled planned and is not presented as shipped.
  • Secret-scanner findings were reviewed in redacted form; no secret value is reproduced here.
  • Existing untracked files were deliberately excluded from every repository operation.
  • The repository owner remains responsible for reviewing the final diff, product claims, privacy decisions, and release submission.

Prior-work attribution

The owner describes the pre-Build Week dashboard and visual UI as Claude-assisted. The owner describes the existing Windows agent, backend, security controls, installers, and platform hardening as Codex-built. Git does not consistently identify the assistant responsible for each historical line, so this is an owner-supplied disclosure, not an independently proven Git fact.

Runtime role for GPT-5.6

GPT-5.6 is used only for the opt-in Guardian Review second-opinion service. Local detection remains the event source. Before each cloud request, the local backend will minimize/redact an allowlisted DTO, show the exact outbound JSON to the parent, and bind explicit consent to its digest. Direct Responses API mode requires verified Zero Data Retention and uses store: false with no tools. The model response is accepted only through the versioned strict schema. It does not directly change enforcement or contact a child.

Build Week day two

Codex implemented and tested the Guardian Review domain, migration, minimizer, consent workflow, worker, providers, harness, dashboard connection flow, and evidence updates. All provider unit tests use synthetic payloads and mocked transport.

One live run used only the checked synthetic unknown-contact fixture. The first compatibility probe demonstrated a safe failure: ChatGPT-authenticated Codex rejected the API alias gpt-5.6. The implementation now records and uses the supported Codex alias gpt-5.6-sol, while the optional direct Responses API provider continues to default to gpt-5.6. A second live synthetic run produced a schema-valid assessment and persisted it encrypted locally. No real child, family, screenshot, credential, or production database content was submitted.

Build Week days three through six

Codex implemented the complete parent communication hierarchy and local feedback, six-scenario guided judge demo, 55-case evaluation/scoring harness, privacy and adversarial tests, release-candidate hardening, and submission copy. All evaluation fixtures remain synthetic.

The July 18 security review changed the product decision. Although the Codex provider used an isolated directory and read-only mode, a coding agent can still have local read tools and inherit process credentials. Codex therefore disabled that runtime provider and device-login route pending enforceable zero-tool isolation. The direct Responses API path already supplies no tools and remains the supported live path; mock mode remains the default judge path.

This is an example of Codex accelerating work without deciding the product boundary alone: the repository records the evidence and implementation, while the owner remains responsible for release, account controls, Windows hardware qualification, video publication, and final submission.