Recent complete observations
- Loading current observations…
CODEX MODEL + EFFORT SELECTOR
Choose the right Codex model and effort
Describe the task. Codex Juice recommends Astra, Sol, Terra or Luna and the smallest reasoning effort likely to finish it well.
Back to Codex RadarTASK → MODEL → EFFORT
Get a starting setup
Three task signals produce a transparent starting point. If verification fails, follow the fallback instead of guessing from Juice values.
Fast reference
These are starting points, not capability rankings. Verification difficulty and quality priority can move a task upward.
| Task | Start with | Effort |
|---|---|---|
| Quick and easy to check | Luna | Low |
| Routine and scoped | Terra | Medium |
| Complex repository work | Sol | High |
| Ambiguous or high-risk | Astra | XHigh |
30-SECOND GUIDE
Choose in 30 seconds
Start with task shape: use less effort when the path and check are obvious, and more when ambiguity or review risk is high. This guide uses OpenAI's quality-versus-speed direction plus external task results—not Juice values.
How the rule works
Model choice follows task breadth and verification risk; effort then controls how much reasoning to spend. The selector uses OpenAI’s model positioning plus external effort evidence, not Juice fingerprint size.
- Low Use for fast, low-risk work where the path and acceptance check are obvious.
- Medium Use for routine, clearly scoped tasks; it is a balanced starting point when the work is familiar.
- High Use as the practical default for substantial repository work; the live external results show the clearest balance before the slower Max tier.
- XHigh Use for ambiguous, cross-module, or high-review-risk work when semantic completeness matters more than time and cost.
- Max Use only when the task justifies the extra latency; current NixBench evidence includes Max, but it is still one external corpus—not a universal rule.
- Ultra No comparable public evidence is available. Do not infer a recommendation from its Juice fingerprint.
TECHNICAL MONITOR
Experimental runtime fingerprint
The live six-effort observations below monitor collection health and configuration changes. Juice is not a capability score; size and movement are neutral runtime fingerprints.
unavailable
Current self-reported fingerprints
| effort | current | previous | delta | verification |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | — | — | — | unavailable |
| Medium | — | — | — | unavailable |
| High | — | — | — | unavailable |
| XHigh | — | — | — | unavailable |
| Max | — | — | — | unavailable |
| Ultra | — | — | — | unavailable |
Loading current observations…
Confirmed change history
- Loading current observations…
Effort trend
Choose an effort to inspect confirmed values across retained sweeps.
Probe method
A restricted, ephemeral Codex CLI session observes one effort at a time. A new value is published only after a second observation from a fresh session matches it. Full sweeps are invalidated if the model identifier changes mid-run.
What this metric cannot prove
Juice is a non-official, self-reported runtime fingerprint—not actual reasoning-token use or a quality benchmark. A higher value, lower value, or change in either direction cannot be interpreted as stronger or weaker coding ability.
OpenAI provides only directional quality-versus-speed guidance for reasoning effort and says not every task benefits equally from more reasoning. Read OpenAI’s reasoning-effort guidance
Live real-task external evidence
NixBench currently reports GPT-5.6 Sol across Low, Medium, High, XHigh and Max on a 29-task coding corpus, with five recorded trials per effort. This is directional evidence from a different benchmark, not a Codex Juice capability score. NixBench has published no GPT-6 Astra rows yet (checked 2026-09-06).
| effort | mean passed | 95% interval | seconds/task | trials | timeouts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | 23.6/29 | 22.2–25.0 | 27.4s | 5 | 0 |
| Medium | 24.0/29 | 22.5–25.5 | 38.5s | 5 | 0 |
| High | 23.6/29 | 22.9–24.3 | 47.4s | 5 | 0 |
| XHigh | 24.0/29 | 23.1–24.9 | 60.7s | 5 | 0 |
| Max | 23.2/29 | 20.1–26.3 | 81.4s | 5 | 3 |
Limits: NixBench uses its own harness, corpus and objective hidden shell evaluators; these results are not Codex Juice readings. Max has a public row here. Ultra is a product mode with no comparable public performance row found in this sweep.
Static snapshot · verified 2026-08-03
Open the live NixBench results Read the NixBench method Open the NixBench repository Compare the DeepSWE live board Read OpenAI’s GPT-5.6 context