Start with a boundary that a reviewer can explain
A request such as “finish the billing feature” leaves too much room for two agents to edit the same files. Divide the work by ownership and dependency. Ask one agent to investigate the current behavior and another to review a proposed test plan. Hold implementation tasks that depend on those findings until you have reconciled them.
VibeiDE gives Codex and Claude Code separate concurrency limits in each project. Those limits control how many tasks may start. They do not create isolated Git worktrees, resolve edit conflicts, or make dependent changes safe to run together. Keep overlapping writes sequential, or prepare separate checkouts yourself.
Queue the work before opening more terminals
Add a focused prompt to the repository it belongs to. Include the intended outcome, files or areas the agent should inspect, and the evidence you expect at completion. Choose the provider and its model or effort settings. A new direct task receives its own conversation when the required capacity becomes available.
You can edit or reorder waiting work while another task runs. A useful starting point is one writable task per repository, with additional capacity reserved for independent investigations. Increase parallel work only when the tasks have boundaries you can actually review. Provider usage windows remain provider constraints; adding slots does not add subscription allowance.
Use Plan council when the approach deserves a challenge
For a migration or a cross-cutting change, let either Codex or Claude author a plan. Plan council sends that plan to the other provider for critical review, then returns it to the original author for revision. The provider order is your choice. Implementation is a separate handoff.
This creates a useful place to challenge assumptions before files change. It is still model-generated review. Ask for concrete failure cases, missing tests, and dependencies, then read the revised plan yourself. Agreement between two agents is not proof that the plan is correct.
Review the result in its original context
The global monitor brings running work across projects into view. Completed tasks collect in Ready for review, where you can open the result, inspect available task-owned patches, and read the saved exchange. Opening a result acknowledges its completion; it does not certify the change.
When a result needs one more adjustment, use supported conversation continuation on the existing task. Start a fresh task when the new request has a different purpose. This keeps a correction beside the request that caused it, while unrelated work begins with its own context.
Explore Claude Code orchestration across your projects, A project workspace and task queue for Codex, Run AI coding agents in parallel with clear task ownership.