choosing your setup

Grok Build or Grok Bot?

Grok Build fits work that lives in a repository: inspect files, make a change, run a command, and review the diff. Grok Bot adds a persistent cloud computer, browser sessions, connected apps, and named agents. those are different reasons to try a product.

i use Grok much less than Codex and Claude Code. what interests me most here is the mobile computer handoff and the ability to coordinate agents. the examples below are ways to evaluate those features; they are proposed exercises, with results still to establish.

what should i try with Build?

choose a change whose expected behavior you already understand. for example:

find why the empty search query shows every result. explain the cause, change it so an empty query shows the existing empty state, and run the relevant tests. return the diff and anything you could not verify.

substitute a real issue and your repository’s test command. use grok inspect first so you know which instructions and tools the session discovered. the Build guide covers interactive use and headless execution if you later need scripting.

judge the result by the change you can inspect: does the original case now work, do the surrounding cases still behave correctly, and can you follow the explanation back to the code? an impressive transcript can still leave the actual behavior unresolved.

can i take over the computer?

a useful browser exercise is collecting two comparable options from public websites into a short table. ask for source links, the criteria you supplied, and any missing information. keep the result as a file you can inspect.

while it works, open the mobile computer view. take control to change a search filter, then return control and explain what you changed. watch whether the Bot understands the current page and continues from there. that tests the takeover loop without needing a purchase or private account.

the practical question is how much supervision this saves you. can you tell what happened while you were away? can you correct one step and let it keep going? do you get a usable result after the handoff?

when would i need another Bot?

one Bot could collect the options while another checks the source links. give each a distinct output and make the second report discrepancies to the first. that is a concrete reason for them to communicate.

remember that their cloud computer is shared. separate screens can still touch the same files or signed in services. name the files each worker owns. a second Bot is useful when it adds independent work or review; overlapping edits add coordination you then have to untangle.

can it do this every week?

xAI separates skills and routines: a skill describes a repeatable method, and a routine schedules work for an owner. once the comparison exercise produces the right result, a skill could capture its inputs, steps, and verification. a routine could run it each week.

define the timezone, destination, and behavior when a source is missing or a login expires. testing a routine performs real work, so check its access and outputs before running it. scheduling becomes worthwhile when the repeated result already meets your needs.