openai / openai/codex

Clarify $imagegen quality controls and built-in vs CLI behavior

Open Beginner friendly
#38,620 0 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

CLI documentation imagen skills
Dominant language
Rust
Stars
125k
Forks
19.5k
PR merge metrics
PR metrics pending

Description

What version of Codex CLI is running?

codex-cli 0.147.0

What subscription do you have?

Pro

Which model were you using?

Not applicable; this concerns the $imagegen skill and its image-generation backend.

What platform is your computer?

macOS v26

What issue are you seeing?

While using the $imagegen skill, it is unclear whether the built-in image_gen path uses gpt-image-2, whether a user can control output quality, and which parameter name applies. The skill mentions gpt-image-2 and quality in its CLI fallback documentation, but it does not clearly state that those controls are unavailable in the built-in tool. A user asking about outputQuality cannot tell whether it is supported, ignored, or should be translated to quality.

What steps can reproduce the bug?

See https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/image-generation?surface=cli

  1. Invoke $imagegen through the default built-in path.
  2. Ask whether outputQuality (or quality) can be set for the presumed gpt-image-2 backend.
  3. Read the skill's built-in and CLI-fallback sections. They distinguish the modes, but leave the built-in model identity and parameter forwarding ambiguous.

Feedback thread ID: 01a00184-e2ba-7630-8a99-2553d9a1b2a1

What is the expected behavior?

The documentation should explicitly state: (a) whether the built-in tool is backed by gpt-image-2 or is implementation-dependent; (b) whether built-in calls expose any quality control; (c) that the documented API/CLI field is quality, including allowed values, if applicable, and whether outputQuality is unsupported or an alias; and (d) that selecting gpt-image-2 and setting --quality requires the explicit CLI/API fallback, if that remains the intended workflow. A minimal example and a clear distinction between prompt wording such as "high quality" and an API quality parameter would remove the ambiguity.

Additional information

This is a documentation-clarity request rather than a runtime error. The current docs mention fallback-only execution controls, but the boundary is easy to miss. Feedback thread ID: 01a00184-e2ba-7630-8a99-2553d9a1b2a1.

Contributor guide

Open the contributing guide

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

Research direction

Start with the linked image-generation documentation and the $imagegen skill's built-in and CLI-fallback sections. Check how they describe the built-in backend, quality controls, and the quality versus outputQuality names. Done means the documentation clearly distinguishes prompt wording from parameters, states supported values or limitations, and includes a minimal fallback example if applicable.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Assessment

Domain
cli, documentation
Issue type
Documentation
Difficulty
2/5
Estimated time
1-3 hours
Activity status
Quiet
Clarity
Mostly clear
Newbie friendliness
68/100

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.