- Added the new codex-windows-sandbox crate that builds both a library
entry point (run_windows_sandbox_capture) and a CLI executable to launch
commands inside a Windows restricted-token sandbox, including ACL
management, capability SID provisioning, network lockdown, and output
capture
(windows-sandbox-rs/src/lib.rs:167, windows-sandbox-rs/src/main.rs:54).
- Introduced the experimental WindowsSandbox feature flag and wiring so
Windows builds can opt into the sandbox:
SandboxType::WindowsRestrictedToken, the in-process execution path, and
platform sandbox selection now honor the flag (core/src/features.rs:47,
core/src/config.rs:1224, core/src/safety.rs:19,
core/src/sandboxing/mod.rs:69, core/src/exec.rs:79,
core/src/exec.rs:172).
- Updated workspace metadata to include the new crate and its
Windows-specific dependencies so the core crate can link against it
(codex-rs/
Cargo.toml:91, core/Cargo.toml:86).
- Added a PowerShell bootstrap script that installs the Windows
toolchain, required CLI utilities, and builds the workspace to ease
development
on the platform (scripts/setup-windows.ps1:1).
- Landed a Python smoke-test suite that exercises
read-only/workspace-write policies, ACL behavior, and network denial for
the Windows sandbox
binary (windows-sandbox-rs/sandbox_smoketests.py:1).
In this PR, I am exploring migrating task kind to an invocation of
Codex. The main reason would be getting rid off multiple
`ConversationHistory` state and streamlining our context/history
management.
This approach depends on opening a channel between the sub-codex and
codex. This channel is responsible for forwarding `interactive`
(`approvals`) and `non-interactive` events. The `task` is responsible
for handling those events.
This opens the door for implementing `codex as a tool`, replacing
`compact` and `review`, and potentially subagents.
One consideration is this code is very similar to `app-server` specially
in the approval part. If in the future we wanted an interactive
`sub-codex` we should consider using `codex-mcp`
This PR adds support for a model-based summary and risk assessment for
commands that violate the sandbox policy and require user approval. This
aids the user in evaluating whether the command should be approved.
The feature works by taking a failed command and passing it back to the
model and asking it to summarize the command, give it a risk level (low,
medium, high) and a risk category (e.g. "data deletion" or "data
exfiltration"). It uses a new conversation thread so the context in the
existing thread doesn't influence the answer. If the call to the model
fails or takes longer than 5 seconds, it falls back to the current
behavior.
For now, this is an experimental feature and is gated by a config key
`experimental_sandbox_command_assessment`.
Here is a screen shot of the approval prompt showing the risk assessment
and summary.
<img width="723" height="282" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/4597dd7c-d5a0-4e9f-9d13-414bd082fd6b"
/>
