Live data from Hacker News

GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

entelligence.ai

71–80 of 127 posts

Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you asked, the answer is that I built and use an agent multiplexer called Clor https://clor.com I have a $200/mo Claude subscription and a $200/mo Codex subscription, and I'm signed in to both. The Docker containers keep each session isolated, so dev servers, browser testing, etc. can work without conflicts. It includes `/ask-claude` and `/ask-codex` skills that I use very frequently to have the Claude or Codex…

I have a slightly jankier setup. Generally using Claude Code with Fable 5.1 (high) to plan and implement (Opus 5 (medium) as the implementer subagents), and using Codex with Astra high to review the plan and review the implementers' output. Using the OpenAI codoex plugin thingy: https://github.com/openai/codex-plugin-cc

I originally had multiple skills for Claude and Codex but found that "ask" is a great single mechanism.

"Ask claude about this"

"Ask codex to implement this"

"Ask claude to review this plan"

etc

Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

#72
post #67
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We totally use it in CI. We were thoughtful in how we built our review bot and it catches a lot of issues before humans lay eyes on the code. Typically they are lower level code issues that humans would not have noticed. It's not the comprehensive review solution, which is why we still require some level of human attendance to the code, but it's very much worth using. We do set limits on PR size and description quali…

so I assembled orchestration which catches design issues, multilayer livenesssoundnesssecurity issues. kind of high level. did you noticed that astra started to write better comments which look as it understands something?

Haven't had a chance to test astra vs 5.6 in these reviews yet. I've seen mixed feedback on astra generally so have hesitated in the upgrade. Have you tested and found any difference?

Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

#73
post #31

IMHO, Codex with Astra/Sol and Claude with Fable/Opus are all any professional programmer should be using in Sep 2026, if they can afford it. These models are still terrible compared to what we'd actually wish for, but they're the best available. If you can get away with using the $200/mo subscriptions, it's really not even a money thing for most professionals. Almost all of my work is now plan, generate, review, pla…

I just tell everyone to use Fable 5.1 for everything at this point. Astra is unfortunately a dud, I'm sure they will try to fix a bunch of it with GPT-6.1 but OAI has had this issue for awhile now where every other generation has some sort of strange tic, or reward hacking issue, or something. It's almost like they are balancing the RL on the tip of a needle. Opus 5 has issues too, comment-slop, claude-ish, etc. 5.1…

I agree with you on this. Opus feels tedious and it cannot be stopped from doing change-narration comments, but Fable feels like a real collaborator. I am usually pretty happy with the code it writes.

Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

#74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a slightly jankier setup. Generally using Claude Code with Fable 5.1 (high) to plan and implement (Opus 5 (medium) as the implementer subagents), and using Codex with Astra high to review the plan and review the implementers' output. Using the OpenAI codoex plugin thingy: https://github.com/openai/codex-plugin-cc

I originally had multiple skills for Claude and Codex but found that "ask" is a great single mechanism. "Ask claude about this" "Ask codex to implement this" "Ask claude to review this plan" etc

"Ask" is a super clever mechanism. I'll give that a shot.

It's also more polite than "tell" or "yell at"!

Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

#75
post #10

I have been writing an internal code review tool that is a bit maximalist. I created subagents for many internal domains and technologies we manage, with prompts focused on best practices, common problems, owasp guidelines, etc), a separate tier of wider band subagents (design, rollout, security/privacy), and a final agent at the top orchestrating and combining. I also use adversarial validator passes against all fin…

> I work where privacy isn't just good behavior, it's enforced by law

HIPAA/medical?

Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

#76
I select my review model based on change complexity. If I'm confident that the change is localized (given that I always maintain an up to date and complete mental model of the application), I'll use Luna/Terra. For deeper changes, I use Sol/Astra. Sol is so good for code reviews that I'll only engage Astra in the very riskiest changes.

Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

#77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In our new world of non-deterministic output (that's why we love LLMs! they say such helpful/agreeable/sometimes wrong stuff!), I think CI won't be sufficient. CI is in the realm of Quality Control; when I build the thing, is it to spec and does it do what I need it to do? But when the model can shift underneath you, I think it will put pressure on Quality Assurance which is an evergreen task. As a parallel, drug man…

>But when the model can shift underneath you, I think it will put pressure on Quality Assurance which is an evergreen task. As a parallel, drug manufacturers don't just test their molecule and manufacturing when they build it, they test it regularly to ensure defects haven't crept in because of some unexpected input to their final output. I think that is similar to how software will evolve. The instinct seems good be…

[dead]

Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

#78

IMHO, Codex with Astra/Sol and Claude with Fable/Opus are all any professional programmer should be using in Sep 2026, if they can afford it. These models are still terrible compared to what we'd actually wish for, but they're the best available. If you can get away with using the $200/mo subscriptions, it's really not even a money thing for most professionals. Almost all of my work is now plan, generate, review, pla…

I disagree; I just spent 15x dogfooding some Claude setup I rolled out to the org making changes that would have cost me less then a dollar had I used Luna and I would have got the same, if not better results; better because it would have been faster so I could have iterated more.

Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

#79
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just tell everyone to use Fable 5.1 for everything at this point. Astra is unfortunately a dud, I'm sure they will try to fix a bunch of it with GPT-6.1 but OAI has had this issue for awhile now where every other generation has some sort of strange tic, or reward hacking issue, or something. It's almost like they are balancing the RL on the tip of a needle. Opus 5 has issues too, comment-slop, claude-ish, etc. 5.1…

My trick for using Opus is using it exclusively as a subagent managed by Fable. "Use Opus subagents for this work where possible" is all it takes generally. In my experience Astra/Sol are both quite good as workhorses, but not at Fable's level. I use them every day very successfully and I'm very picky.

I used to do this but recently I switched to having Fable 5.1 spawn forks of itself rather than Opus subagents. Yes it's more expensive but you don't pay for reads that already happened pre-fork, and you end up doing less rework since Fable agents are just much smarter.

Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

#80
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just tell everyone to use Fable 5.1 for everything at this point. Astra is unfortunately a dud, I'm sure they will try to fix a bunch of it with GPT-6.1 but OAI has had this issue for awhile now where every other generation has some sort of strange tic, or reward hacking issue, or something. It's almost like they are balancing the RL on the tip of a needle. Opus 5 has issues too, comment-slop, claude-ish, etc. 5.1…

Interesting, in my experience Astra is a marked improvement over both Sol 5.6 and Fable 5.1. Its output feels a lot more natural, and it is just less "dumb." But individual experiences may vary.

It's a great model and you're right it does feel quite natural at times while Fable 5.1 still has a claude-ish shape to it. Unfortunately I just find that it's not reliable enough as a daily driver and ends up performing specialist tasks rather than being the primary pane of glass.
Post reply on HN