Skip to main content
Glama
AmirShayegh

codex-claude-bridge

by AmirShayegh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Related Servers

Alternatives to codex-claude-bridge

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • codex-bridge

      ndcorder
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server that lets Claude Code ask GPT Codex for adversarial planning, code review, debugging, research, and risk triage without leaving your project workflow.
      9
      13 npm
      2
      MIT

    • agent-fleet

      baiqiaw
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server that enables Claude Code to delegate tasks to Codex for real-time collaborative code generation and execution.
      11 npm
      MIT

    • codex-fusion-mcp

      Tritlo
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      MCP server enabling Claude to consult Codex (GPT-5.x) mid-task for second opinions, plan/diff review, brainstorming, and codebase exploration via structured debates and permission-controlled interactions.
      2
      MIT

    • codex-mcp

      ab300819
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      A MCP server that enables Claude Code to delegate coding tasks to Codex via the MCP protocol, with task management, security checks, and result verification.
      56 npm
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    A4.2/5.0

    Scored across 5 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    The tools are largely distinct: plan, code, precommit, history, and status each have a clear primary role. However, review_code and review_precommit both address reviewing changes before commit, and review_history also exposes session state that overlaps with review_status.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent review_<target> snake_case pattern, making their purpose predictable. The names are uniform and easy to group mentally.

    Tool Count5/5

    Five tools is a well-scoped size for this domain. Each tool covers a distinct step in the review workflow without unnecessary bloat.

    Completeness4/5

    The set covers the full review lifecycle: plan review, code review, pre-commit sanity check, history lookup, and session status. Minor gaps include no explicit cancel/retry mechanism for failed or timed-out sessions, but the core workflow is complete.

    Maintenance

    ActivityNo data
    ResponsivenessUnresponsive

    Resources