Permissions should match consequence
A read-only repository review and a production migration should not share the same authority. Start with the narrowest access that can complete the task. Claude Code and Codex gate actions differently, and the side-by-side comparison sets out each one’s approval model. Expand only when a concrete blocked action is understood and the scope remains acceptable.
Protect the irreversible seams
Credentials, production databases, package publication, git history rewrites, and broad deletion need explicit review. Never paste secrets into prompts or logs. Prefer dry runs, previews, backups, and commands limited to the named resource.
- Inspect proposed commands.
- Keep unrelated dirty files intact.
- Use environment-native secret loading.
- Verify external state after authorized writes.
Review generated code as untrusted input
Passing tests reduce risk but do not prove security or product correctness. Read authentication, billing, data migration, and shell-script changes closely. The owner remains responsible for the shipped result.
Questions
Should I allow every command for convenience?
No. Approve capabilities in proportion to the task and review actions with destructive or external consequences.
Still unsure? Write to [email protected] or use the contact form. Contact CmdBrief →
Primary sources
Provider terms and product behavior can change. Confirm plan, pricing, model, and permission details in the current official documentation.