CodexWorkAt the first check, the feedback workflow had code and instructions. At the second, it also had two real model runs. The useful next action was not to run the model again.
The Agent had been given a small responsibility: look after the workflow’s instructions and execution claims. Keep them aligned with two official Codex pages and the work actually completed. Save enough state to recognise what changes next time.
Read the saved responsibility · Inspect both observations
What changed between the checks
At 10:27 UTC on 24 October, both official sources could be opened. Their relevant command and sign-in guidance supported the proposed route. The package was present, but execution records had not arrived in the checked workspace. The observation said exactly that.
At 10:37, the work owner supplied a new signal: the runs and their outputs were now available. The Agent reopened the saved responsibility, compared the package and checked the same sources. Twelve original package files were unchanged. Eighteen result and metadata files had arrived.
The new evidence supported a narrower, stronger statement: two manually started batches had completed through the installed CLI, with matching inputs and implementation. A duplicate-ID input had been rejected before a model call. The next work was to update the claim and inspect the existing reports. Browser acceptance remained open.
Open the first report · Open the changed batch
A responsibility is not a reminder
“Remind me to check this” leaves the comparison to you. “Look after this, within these limits” gives the Agent a continuing object: sources, last confirmed state, meaningful changes and a place to leave its work.
That can be a modest job. Watch the requirements for an event you plan to attend. Keep a project’s official references current. Return to a research question when a specified source changes. The important part is not the size of the brief. It is being able to find what was already established and decide what the new information changes.
For your own Agent, a starting brief could be:
Look after these event pages for me. Update my saved note when the date, registration or eligibility changes in a way that affects my plans. Keep the last confirmed information if a page cannot be opened, and say what is unconfirmed. Show me where you saved the responsibility and how I can pause it.
Give it the actual source links and a destination it can write. Ask it to confirm the saved location. Then agree on what starts the next check.
Save first. Verify the continuation route.
In this example, the owner requested the later check manually. No background schedule was created. A saved file is not proof that an Agent will wake up tomorrow.
Use a host that supports the continuation you want. A file-based Agent can resume when you open the folder and ask. An assistant with a real task system may support a schedule, but its created task and pause controls need to be visible before you rely on them. The ongoing task planner helps write the responsibility; it does not activate one.
An unavailable source also means something different from an unchanged one. Keep the last confirmed note, preserve its date and mark the gap. Both sources opened in this trial, so that failure rule was specified, not exercised.
The full record links the observations to Codex’s non-interactive interface and authentication documentation. This was a real continuation over a short interval, not evidence of weeks of unattended reliability. Its useful result is smaller: the next check knew what was already done.