Morgan Linton

And then if you do that, it's going to default to auto, which usually means in process, which means in that same terminal window you have, the agents are going to be working all together.

If you want it to split pane, then you just need to update that setting in the settings.json to split panes.

I'm not going to go into super details on that, but those are just like, I think, good housekeeping to start with for anyone using Opus.

But don't worry about it.

Really, all that anybody needs to do, especially if you don't even want to use teams, agent teams, is just make sure you're updated using the newest version and that the model is Opus and you'll be using Opus 4.6.

So that's that.

Before I get into kind of the differences between Opus 4.6 and Codex, I thought I would actually read this because this was posted on Hacker News four hours ago.

And I was reading and I was thinking that's like the best way to explain it.

So I'm just going to read this little section here because I think they do such a good job with it.

This person's saying, what's interesting to me is that GPT-5-3 and Opus 4-6 are diverging philosophically and really in the same way that actual engineers and orgs have diverged philosophically.

I think this really nails it.

With Codex 5-3, the framing is an interactive collaborator.

You steer it mid-execution, stay in the loop, course correct as it works.

With Opus 4.6, the emphasis is the opposite, a more autonomous, agentic, thoughtful system that plans deeply, runs longer, and asks less of the human.

That feels like a reflection of a real split in how people think LLM-based coding should work.

Some want tight human-in-loop control.

Others want to delegate whole chunks of work and review the results.

And I honestly, I think that says it beautifully.

And I think that nails the differences.

And also, hopefully, you know, everybody wants to pick a winner where it's like, oh, no, no, Opus 4.6 is better.