@u.myint.lwin733: #မူရင်းတင်ဆက် ပေးထားသူအားလေးစားဂုဏ်ပြူလျှက်ပါ၊ရွှင်လန်းချမ်းမြေ့ကြပါစေ#***

U Myint Lwin

Open In TikTok:

Region: MM

Monday 20 July 2026 11:17:32 GMT

1730

322

33

41

Music

Download

No Watermark .mp4 (2.47MB) No Watermark(HD) .mp4 (2.47MB) Watermark .mp4 (7.36MB) Music .mp3

Comments

Moe Moe :

🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰

2026-07-20 11:31:09

2

Lucky :

သီချင်းကောင်းလေးပါ

2026-07-20 12:47:54

1

Diamond Intr :

မဂ်လာပါခင်ဗျာအားပေးနားဆင်နေပါတယ်ခင်ဗျာဦးကိုဝင်းထာ့ဆောင်ယန်

2026-07-21 02:10:37

1

လက်သံမြားပြားသံလက်ဝါး :

❤️❤️

2026-08-04 13:58:37

1

U Win2024 :

🥰🥰🥰🥰မဂ်လာပါဗျ ကျေးဇူးတင်ပါတယ်

2026-08-05 15:52:25

1

daw tin yi :

💚💚💚💚

2026-07-21 05:52:55

0

kaung Sat Lin :

တင်လိုက်တဲ့သီချင်းတွေကရင်ဘတ်ကြီးကိုတည့်တည့်ကြီးထိတယ်ဗျာပါးပါးလေးပုတ်ပါ လားဗျာနော်

2026-07-24 03:41:40

1

Andrea Aye :

အရမ်းကြိုက်ပါတယ်ရှင်ကျေးဇူးပါ🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🌹🌹🌹

2026-07-21 04:31:57

1

Daw Win Kyi :

ကြိုက်သောသီချင်းဖြစ်ပါသောကြောင့်တင်ပေးသူ ကျေးဇူးပါ။👍🥰

2026-07-21 03:08:36

1

အောင်တံခွန် :

ထာဝရအားပေးလျက်

2026-07-21 13:11:13

1

Daw Myit Myit Than :

မဂ်လာပါရှင်

2026-07-22 01:11:49

1

Nang Mee :

မဂ်လာနံက်ပါ💕💕💕🌸

2026-07-22 00:48:47

1

Daw Hla Hla Htwe :

ညချမ်းလေးပါ🥰🥰❤️❤️🥰🥰

2026-07-20 12:59:13

1

Than. Than :

မာမာအေးရဲ့ဆောင်းကတီပါသီချင်းအစအဆုံးတင်ပေးပါအုန်း

2026-07-20 12:18:12

1

Ko Thar Kyi :

🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧

2026-07-21 10:04:28

0

myint.win25090 :

❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

2026-07-20 11:38:47

1

To see more videos from user @u.myint.lwin733, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

#MunafikMelawanIblis #BahayaJadiMunafik #MunafiknyaIndo #filmmunafik

#MunafikMelawanIblis #BahayaJadiMunafik #MunafiknyaIndo #filmmunafik

Gojo Death Manga Animation // First time animating a manga panel, lowk peak :) // #gojo #manga #jjk #animeedit #aftereffectseditor #anime #sukuna #mangaanimationedit // song: mrs magic

Gojo Death Manga Animation // First time animating a manga panel, lowk peak :) // #gojo #manga #jjk #animeedit #aftereffectseditor #anime #sukuna #mangaanimationedit // song: mrs magic

Most people use one AI coding agent and assume that’s enough. But for bigger, riskier or more complex builds, there’s a smarter way to work: let one model help shape the plan, and let another challenge it before you start writing code. 🧠💻 That’s the idea behind combining Claude Code + Codex into a two-model review workflow. Instead of asking one agent to come up with a plan and then blindly trusting its own reasoning, you deliberately create a second opinion. One model helps interrogate the task, clarify what you actually want, surface assumptions and turn the idea into a structured plan. The second model then reviews that plan from a different angle and looks for weaknesses, blind spots and things that could break later. 🔍⚙️ Think of Claude Code as the interrogator at the start. You want it asking questions like: What exactly are we building? Who is it for? What already exists in the codebase? What constraints matter? What does success actually look like? Where are the risky decisions? What assumptions are we making? The goal is not to jump straight into coding. The goal is to make the intent crystal clear first. 🎯 Once you have that plan, Codex can act as the independent reviewer. Ask it to stress-test the architecture, challenge assumptions and look for things such as missing edge cases, security gaps, race conditions, schema conflicts, integration issues, observability problems and simpler alternatives. It doesn’t need to agree with the original plan. In fact, the value comes from giving it permission to disagree. 🛡️ If the review says the plan is weak, revise it. Then run the review again. But don’t let that become an endless AI debate. Set a clear stopping rule: approve the plan when it is strong enough, or stop after a defined number of review rounds. That gives you the benefit of multiple perspectives without getting stuck in analysis forever. 🔄✅ For this kind of workflow, it also makes sense to keep the review stage as read-only or approval-based wherever possible. The reviewer should ideally be evaluating the plan, not quietly changing production files while it is still deciding whether the approach is sound. Separating critique from implementation makes the workflow easier to control and reduces accidental changes. 🔒 And there’s one important principle here: the AI should not be the final authority. Claude Code can synthesise the feedback. Codex can challenge the plan. Both can help you reason faster. But the final sign-off should still belong to you. You decide which critiques are useful, which ones are weak, what gets changed and when the build moves forward. 👤✅ This workflow is especially useful for higher-impact work like authentication, payments, migrations, schema design, concurrency, integrations and other changes where getting the architecture wrong can cost far more time than spending 15–20 minutes reviewing the plan first. For a tiny CSS tweak or a trivial low-risk change, it may be overkill. 🧩 The simplest version looks like this: Define the task → let Claude Code interrogate the intent → write a clear plan → ask Codex to stress-test it → revise if needed → approve → build → test thoroughly. 🚀 The bigger idea is simple: don’t just use AI to write code faster. Use AI to improve the quality of the thinking that happens before the code is written. That’s where a second model can become incredibly valuable. 💡 Would you use two AI coding agents together like this, or do you still prefer sticking with one? 👇 #ai #coding #claudecode #codex #softwaredevelopment 3

Most people use one AI coding agent and assume that’s enough. But for bigger, riskier or more complex builds, there’s a smarter way to work: let one model help shape the plan, and let another challenge it before you start writing code. 🧠💻 That’s the idea behind combining Claude Code + Codex into a two-model review workflow. Instead of asking one agent to come up with a plan and then blindly trusting its own reasoning, you deliberately create a second opinion. One model helps interrogate the task, clarify what you actually want, surface assumptions and turn the idea into a structured plan. The second model then reviews that plan from a different angle and looks for weaknesses, blind spots and things that could break later. 🔍⚙️ Think of Claude Code as the interrogator at the start. You want it asking questions like: What exactly are we building? Who is it for? What already exists in the codebase? What constraints matter? What does success actually look like? Where are the risky decisions? What assumptions are we making? The goal is not to jump straight into coding. The goal is to make the intent crystal clear first. 🎯 Once you have that plan, Codex can act as the independent reviewer. Ask it to stress-test the architecture, challenge assumptions and look for things such as missing edge cases, security gaps, race conditions, schema conflicts, integration issues, observability problems and simpler alternatives. It doesn’t need to agree with the original plan. In fact, the value comes from giving it permission to disagree. 🛡️ If the review says the plan is weak, revise it. Then run the review again. But don’t let that become an endless AI debate. Set a clear stopping rule: approve the plan when it is strong enough, or stop after a defined number of review rounds. That gives you the benefit of multiple perspectives without getting stuck in analysis forever. 🔄✅ For this kind of workflow, it also makes sense to keep the review stage as read-only or approval-based wherever possible. The reviewer should ideally be evaluating the plan, not quietly changing production files while it is still deciding whether the approach is sound. Separating critique from implementation makes the workflow easier to control and reduces accidental changes. 🔒 And there’s one important principle here: the AI should not be the final authority. Claude Code can synthesise the feedback. Codex can challenge the plan. Both can help you reason faster. But the final sign-off should still belong to you. You decide which critiques are useful, which ones are weak, what gets changed and when the build moves forward. 👤✅ This workflow is especially useful for higher-impact work like authentication, payments, migrations, schema design, concurrency, integrations and other changes where getting the architecture wrong can cost far more time than spending 15–20 minutes reviewing the plan first. For a tiny CSS tweak or a trivial low-risk change, it may be overkill. 🧩 The simplest version looks like this: Define the task → let Claude Code interrogate the intent → write a clear plan → ask Codex to stress-test it → revise if needed → approve → build → test thoroughly. 🚀 The bigger idea is simple: don’t just use AI to write code faster. Use AI to improve the quality of the thinking that happens before the code is written. That’s where a second model can become incredibly valuable. 💡 Would you use two AI coding agents together like this, or do you still prefer sticking with one? 👇 #ai #coding #claudecode #codex #softwaredevelopment 3

Fadli Faisal sampe berantem😱 #paketsantet #filmpaketsantet #dikiriminpaketsantet #filmhoror #filmhororindonesia #fypp #film #viral #fyp #filmedit #clip #kurirpaket

Fadli Faisal sampe berantem😱 #paketsantet #filmpaketsantet #dikiriminpaketsantet #filmhoror #filmhororindonesia #fypp #film #viral #fyp #filmedit #clip #kurirpaket

Kleiner Unfall in der Probe 😩 #zdf #fernsehgarten #dance

Kleiner Unfall in der Probe 😩 #zdf #fernsehgarten #dance

About

Robot
API

Legal

Privacy Policy