---

summary: "How OpenClaw closes agentic execution gaps for GPT-5.4 and Codex-style models"

title: "GPT-5.4 / Codex agentic parity"

summary: "How OpenClaw closes agentic execution gaps for GPT-5.5 and Codex-style models"

title: "GPT-5.5 / Codex agentic parity"

read_when:

- Debugging GPT-5.4 or Codex agent behavior

- Debugging GPT-5.5 or Codex agent behavior

- Comparing OpenClaw agentic behavior across frontier models

- Reviewing the strict-agentic, tool-schema, elevation, and replay fixes

---

# GPT-5.4 / Codex Agentic Parity in OpenClaw

# GPT-5.5 / Codex Agentic Parity in OpenClaw

OpenClaw already worked well with tool-using frontier models, but GPT-5.4 and Codex-style models were still underperforming in a few practical ways:

OpenClaw already worked well with tool-using frontier models, but GPT-5.5 and Codex-style models were still underperforming in a few practical ways:

- they could stop after planning instead of doing the work

- they could use strict OpenAI/Codex tool schemas incorrectly

When enabled, OpenClaw stops accepting plan-only turns as “good enough” completion. If the model only says what it intends to do and does not actually use tools or make progress, OpenClaw retries with an act-now steer and then fails closed with an explicit blocked state instead of silently ending the task.

This improves the GPT-5.4 experience most on:

This improves the GPT-5.5 experience most on:

- short “ok do it” follow-ups

- code tasks where the first step is obvious

- why the provider/runtime call failed

- whether `/elevated full` is actually available

That means GPT-5.4 gets better runtime signals for missing scope, auth refresh failures, HTML 403 auth failures, proxy issues, DNS or timeout failures, and blocked full-access modes. The model is less likely to hallucinate the wrong remediation or keep asking for a permission mode the runtime cannot provide.

That means GPT-5.5 gets better runtime signals for missing scope, auth refresh failures, HTML 403 auth failures, proxy issues, DNS or timeout failures, and blocked full-access modes. The model is less likely to hallucinate the wrong remediation or keep asking for a permission mode the runtime cannot provide.

### PR C: execution correctness

### PR D: parity harness

This slice adds the first-wave QA-lab parity pack so GPT-5.4 and Opus 4.6 can be exercised through the same scenarios and compared using shared evidence.

This slice adds the first-wave QA-lab parity pack so GPT-5.5 and Opus 4.6 can be exercised through the same scenarios and compared using shared evidence.

The parity pack is the proof layer. It does not change runtime behavior by itself.

```bash

pnpm openclaw qa parity-report \

--repo-root . \

--candidate-summary .artifacts/qa-e2e/gpt54/qa-suite-summary.json \

--candidate-summary .artifacts/qa-e2e/gpt55/qa-suite-summary.json \

--baseline-summary .artifacts/qa-e2e/opus46/qa-suite-summary.json \

--output-dir .artifacts/qa-e2e/parity

```

- a machine-readable JSON verdict

- an explicit `pass` / `fail` gate result

## Why this improves GPT-5.4 in practice

## Why this improves GPT-5.5 in practice

Before this work, GPT-5.4 on OpenClaw could feel less agentic than Opus in real coding sessions because the runtime tolerated behaviors that are especially harmful for GPT-5-style models:

Before this work, GPT-5.5 on OpenClaw could feel less agentic than Opus in real coding sessions because the runtime tolerated behaviors that are especially harmful for GPT-5-style models:

- commentary-only turns

- schema friction around tools

- vague permission feedback

- silent replay or compaction breakage

The goal is not to make GPT-5.4 imitate Opus. The goal is to give GPT-5.4 a runtime contract that rewards real progress, supplies cleaner tool and permission semantics, and turns failure modes into explicit machine- and human-readable states.

The goal is not to make GPT-5.5 imitate Opus. The goal is to give GPT-5.5 a runtime contract that rewards real progress, supplies cleaner tool and permission semantics, and turns failure modes into explicit machine- and human-readable states.

That changes the user experience from:

- “the model either acted, or OpenClaw surfaced the exact reason it could not”

## Before vs after for GPT-5.4 users

## Before vs after for GPT-5.5 users

| Before this program | After PR A-D |

| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| GPT-5.4 could stop after a reasonable plan without taking the next tool step | PR A turns “plan only” into “act now or surface a blocked state” |

| GPT-5.5 could stop after a reasonable plan without taking the next tool step | PR A turns “plan only” into “act now or surface a blocked state” |

| Strict tool schemas could reject parameter-free or OpenAI/Codex-shaped tools in confusing ways | PR C makes provider-owned tool registration and invocation more predictable |

| `/elevated full` guidance could be vague or wrong in blocked runtimes | PR B gives GPT-5.4 and the user truthful runtime and permission hints |

| `/elevated full` guidance could be vague or wrong in blocked runtimes | PR B gives GPT-5.5 and the user truthful runtime and permission hints |

| Replay or compaction failures could feel like the task silently disappeared | PR C surfaces paused, blocked, abandoned, and replay-invalid outcomes explicitly |

| “GPT-5.4 feels worse than Opus” was mostly anecdotal | PR D turns that into the same scenario pack, the same metrics, and a hard pass/fail gate |

| “GPT-5.5 feels worse than Opus” was mostly anecdotal | PR D turns that into the same scenario pack, the same metrics, and a hard pass/fail gate |

## Architecture

```mermaid

flowchart LR

A["Merged runtime slices (PR A-C)"] --> B["Run GPT-5.4 parity pack"]

A["Merged runtime slices (PR A-C)"] --> B["Run GPT-5.5 parity pack"]

A --> C["Run Opus 4.6 parity pack"]

B --> D["qa-suite-summary.json"]

C --> E["qa-suite-summary.json"]

## Scenario matrix

| Scenario | What it tests | Good GPT-5.4 behavior | Failure signal |

| Scenario | What it tests | Good GPT-5.5 behavior | Failure signal |

| ---------------------------------- | --------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

| `approval-turn-tool-followthrough` | Short approval turns after a plan | Starts the first concrete tool action immediately instead of restating intent | plan-only follow-up, no tool activity, or blocked turn without a real blocker |

| `model-switch-tool-continuity` | Runtime/model switching under tool use | Preserves task context and continues acting coherently | resets into commentary, loses tool context, or stops after switch |

## Release gate

GPT-5.4 can only be considered at parity or better when the merged runtime passes the parity pack and the runtime-truthfulness regressions at the same time.

GPT-5.5 can only be considered at parity or better when the merged runtime passes the parity pack and the runtime-truthfulness regressions at the same time.

Required outcomes:

Parity evidence is intentionally split across two layers:

- PR D proves same-scenario GPT-5.4 vs Opus 4.6 behavior with QA-lab

- PR D proves same-scenario GPT-5.5 vs Opus 4.6 behavior with QA-lab

- PR B deterministic suites prove auth, proxy, DNS, and `/elevated full` truthfulness outside the harness

## Goal-to-evidence matrix

| Completion gate item | Owning PR | Evidence source | Pass signal |

| -------------------------------------------------------- | ----------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| GPT-5.4 no longer stalls after planning | PR A | `approval-turn-tool-followthrough` plus PR A runtime suites | approval turns trigger real work or an explicit blocked state |

| GPT-5.4 no longer fakes progress or fake tool completion | PR A + PR D | parity report scenario outcomes and fake-success count | no suspicious pass results and no commentary-only completion |

| GPT-5.4 no longer gives false `/elevated full` guidance | PR B | deterministic truthfulness suites | blocked reasons and full-access hints stay runtime-accurate |

| GPT-5.5 no longer stalls after planning | PR A | `approval-turn-tool-followthrough` plus PR A runtime suites | approval turns trigger real work or an explicit blocked state |

| GPT-5.5 no longer fakes progress or fake tool completion | PR A + PR D | parity report scenario outcomes and fake-success count | no suspicious pass results and no commentary-only completion |

| GPT-5.5 no longer gives false `/elevated full` guidance | PR B | deterministic truthfulness suites | blocked reasons and full-access hints stay runtime-accurate |

| Replay/liveness failures stay explicit | PR C + PR D | PR C lifecycle/replay suites plus `compaction-retry-mutating-tool` | mutating work keeps replay-unsafety explicit instead of silently disappearing |

| GPT-5.4 matches or beats Opus 4.6 on the agreed metrics | PR D | `qa-agentic-parity-report.md` and `qa-agentic-parity-summary.json` | same scenario coverage and no regression on completion, stop behavior, or valid tool use |

| GPT-5.5 matches or beats Opus 4.6 on the agreed metrics | PR D | `qa-agentic-parity-report.md` and `qa-agentic-parity-summary.json` | same scenario coverage and no regression on completion, stop behavior, or valid tool use |

## How to read the parity verdict

Use the verdict in `qa-agentic-parity-summary.json` as the final machine-readable decision for the first-wave parity pack.

- `pass` means GPT-5.4 covered the same scenarios as Opus 4.6 and did not regress on the agreed aggregate metrics.

- `pass` means GPT-5.5 covered the same scenarios as Opus 4.6 and did not regress on the agreed aggregate metrics.

- `fail` means at least one hard gate tripped: weaker completion, worse unintended stops, weaker valid tool use, any fake-success case, or mismatched scenario coverage.

- “shared/base CI issue” is not itself a parity result. If CI noise outside PR D blocks a run, the verdict should wait for a clean merged-runtime execution instead of being inferred from branch-era logs.

- Auth, proxy, DNS, and `/elevated full` truthfulness still come from PR B’s deterministic suites, so the final release claim needs both: a passing PR D parity verdict and green PR B truthfulness coverage.

Use `strict-agentic` when:

- the agent is expected to act immediately when a next step is obvious

- GPT-5.4 or Codex-family models are the primary runtime

- GPT-5.5 or Codex-family models are the primary runtime

- you prefer explicit blocked states over “helpful” recap-only replies

Keep the default contract when:

## Related

- [GPT-5.4 / Codex parity maintainer notes](/help/gpt54-codex-agentic-parity-maintainers)

- [GPT-5.5 / Codex parity maintainer notes](/help/gpt55-codex-agentic-parity-maintainers)