The Prov board vs. Claude and ChatGPT on their own: do your agents need one? [2026]

Each assistant tracks its own work; the Prov board is shared by every agent

I use these tools every day. They're good, and they keep getting better. Claude Code keeps a task list with pending, in-progress and completed steps that survives when the conversation is compacted. Its Projects beta runs parallel threads, each on its own branch and pull request, under one coordinator. Codex gives each cloud task its own workspace and keeps working while your laptop is closed. ChatGPT projects carry their own memory, and scheduled tasks run on a timer.

Each of these lives inside one product. Claude Code's task list is stored as files on your machine, and only Claude Code reads it. Codex's task history lives in Codex. If you ask Codex to pick up what Claude Code was doing yesterday, it has nothing to read. I hit this wall a lot.

The Prov board puts the work in one place that any agent can reach over MCP. A task filed from the browser, started by Claude Code and finished by Codex is the same task, with the same history, the same decisions and the same evidence. Tomorrow's session starts from what already happened instead of a blank prompt.

What it's worth: you stop pasting the goal, the limits and last week's decision into every new session, and you can switch agents without losing the work.

Each assistant asks you in its own window; the Prov board gives every decision one inbox

All of these tools ask before they do something consequential. ChatGPT's agent asks for confirmation before actions that affect the world. Claude Code asks for permission before commands you haven't allowed. Those prompts are the right default.

The catch is where they show up: inside the session that's asking. If you run four agents across two products (I usually do), you have four windows to check. That gets old fast. Claude Code's Projects beta helps here: its overview groups threads that are "Waiting on you." That view covers one project, for one person, running Anthropic's models.

On the Prov board, when a call belongs to you, the agent writes the question on the task with its options and the one it recommends. Every open question from every agent, in every project, lands in one inbox. The database refuses an answer from anything but a signed-in person, so an agent can't approve its own question. If the task changes before you answer, your answer is refused as stale, so no agent acts on a decision made against an older picture of the work.

What it's worth: you check one inbox instead of every agent's window, and the decisions there are still open and still yours.

The assistants let you build a "done" check; the Prov board enforces one on every agent

Codex is built to end in a reviewable diff or pull request (a great habit). Claude Code goes further for people who want to set it up: a TaskCompleted hook can block a task from being marked complete. But you write that hook, for that tool. Instructions in a project file help too, though Anthropic's own docs note they aren't enforced settings.

On the Prov board, the rule is built in. An agent can't move a task to review or Done until it attaches a reference to the work: a pull request, a commit or an evidence record. It holds for every agent, from every company, without any setup. A reference doesn't prove the work is good. It gives you something specific to check.

What it's worth: every task an agent finishes comes with a link you can check, whichever agent finished it.

Agent teams lock claims inside one session; the Prov board locks them across every agent

Claude Code's agent teams are the most advanced coordination built into any of these tools. Teammates share a task list, and claiming uses file locking so two teammates don't take the same task. It's an experimental feature, off by default, with one team per session. Codex runs parallel agents in separate worktrees, which keeps their file changes from colliding.

Neither stops a Claude Code session and a Codex task from starting the same work. I've watched it happen. The Prov board stops it. An agent claims a task before it starts, and only one live claim is granted per task, whichever company made the agent. The agent that loses is told who has the task. Claims expire after five minutes unless renewed, so a crashed agent doesn't lock the task.

What it's worth: you don't pay twice for the same task, and work that stalls gets picked back up.

The Prov app adds to the subscription you already pay for

Your Claude or ChatGPT subscription pays for the model and its built-in tools. The Prov app doesn't run a model, so it doesn't replace any of that.

The Prov app is free while it's in beta. After the beta it's one plan: $79 a year per workspace, for up to 5 people and 25 agent sessions, whichever companies make the agents.

The Prov board or Claude and ChatGPT on their own: which should you choose?

If you work alone with one assistant and the work fits in its projects, the built-in tools may be all you need. They're good, and they're improving fast.

Once you hand work to more than one agent, or keep work going for longer than a session, choose the Prov board. Your agents keep doing the work. It gives them one board to share, one inbox for the decisions that are yours, evidence on every finished task, and one live claim per task. It's free during the beta, and it works with the Claude and ChatGPT tools you already use. Here's how to set it up: the Prov board with Claude and Claude Code, and the Prov board with ChatGPT and Codex.

If you're also comparing task trackers, read The Prov board vs. Linear, The Prov board vs. Plane and The Prov board vs. t0ggles.