Chat, Work and Codex are not three names for the same workflow. The simplest choice is: conversation → Chat, multi-step finished result → Work, repository and code → Codex.
Best for quick conversation, analysis, drafts and a single image.
For multi-step tasks, research and a finished result.
For software: repositories, files, tests and fixes.
A simple selection rule
| Task | Mode | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Write three CTA variants | Chat | Short result and rapid iteration. |
| Research the market and create a report | Work | Multiple sources and stages. |
| Fix a plugin and run tests | Codex | Code context and execution are required. |
Ready commands
CHAT
Chat: quick decision
I have three variants of [X]. Compare them by cost, time, risk and user impact. Give me a table first, then a recommendation and the conditions under which you would choose a different option. Do not guess prices if I did not provide them.WORK
Work: from research to result
Research [topic] using current, credible sources. Separate facts from opinions. Compare sources and show discrepancies and dates. Then prepare a finished [report/plan/article] with recommendations. At the end, add a list of claims that could not be confirmed unambiguously.CODEX / CODE
Change existing code without causing regression
First audit the existing repository and identify the files responsible for the problem. Do not change the architecture unless necessary. Task: [describe the exact bug]. Preserve working APIs, routing and styles outside the scope. Make the smallest safe change. Add or update a regression test. Run lint and the full existing test suite. At the end, report: changed files, root cause, test results and anything that could not be verified. Do not mark the release as ready if the tests are red.A code prompt should resemble a good technical ticket: current state, expected result, constraints and an acceptance test.