Adds a new ItemStarted event and delivers UserMessage as the first item
type (more to come).
Renames `InputItem` to `UserInput` considering we're using the `Item`
suffix for actual items.
We use to put the review prompt in the first user message as well to
bypass statsig overrides, but now that's been resolved and instructions
are being respected, so we're duplicating the review instructions.
## Summary
- replace manual event polling loops in several core test suites with
the shared wait_for_event helpers
- keep prior assertions intact by using closure captures for stateful
expectations, including plan updates, patch lifecycles, and review flow
checks
- rely on wait_for_event_with_timeout where longer waits are required,
simplifying timeout handling
## Testing
- just fmt
------
https://chatgpt.com/codex/tasks/task_i_68e1d58582d483208febadc5f90dd95e
This changes the reqwest client used in tests to be sandbox-friendly,
and skips a bunch of other tests that don't work inside the
sandbox/without network.
Proposal: We want to record a dev message like so:
```
{
"type": "message",
"role": "user",
"content": [
{
"type": "input_text",
"text": "<user_action>
<context>User initiated a review task. Here's the full review output from reviewer model. User may select one or more comments to resolve.</context>
<action>review</action>
<results>
{findings_str}
</results>
</user_action>"
}
]
},
```
Without showing in the chat transcript.
Rough idea, but it fixes issue where the user finishes a review thread,
and asks the parent "fix the rest of the review issues" thinking that
the parent knows about it.
### Question: Why not a tool call?
Because the agent didn't make the call, it was a human. + we haven't
implemented sub-agents yet, and we'll need to think about the way we
represent these human-led tool calls for the agent.
1. Adds the environment prompt (including cwd) to review thread
2. Prepends the review prompt as a user message (temporary fix so the
instructions are not replaced on backend)
3. Sets reasoning to low
4. Sets default review model to `gpt-5-codex`
Adding the ability to resume conversations.
we have one verb `resume`.
Behavior:
`tui`:
`codex resume`: opens session picker
`codex resume --last`: continue last message
`codex resume <session id>`: continue conversation with `session id`
`exec`:
`codex resume --last`: continue last conversation
`codex resume <session id>`: continue conversation with `session id`
Implementation:
- I added a function to find the path in `~/.codex/sessions/` with a
`UUID`. This is helpful in resuming with session id.
- Added the above mentioned flags
- Added lots of testing
There are exactly 4 types of flaky tests in Windows x86 right now:
1. `review_input_isolated_from_parent_history` => Times out waiting for
closing events
2. `review_does_not_emit_agent_message_on_structured_output` => Times
out waiting for closing events
3. `auto_compact_runs_after_token_limit_hit` => Times out waiting for
closing events
4. `auto_compact_runs_after_token_limit_hit` => Also has a problem where
auto compact should add a third request, but receives 4 requests.
1, 2, and 3 seem to be solved with increasing threads on windows runner
from 2 -> 4.
Don't know yet why # 4 is happening, but probably also because of
WireMock issues on windows causing races.
## 📝 Review Mode -- Core
This PR introduces the Core implementation for Review mode:
- New op `Op::Review { prompt: String }:` spawns a child review task
with isolated context, a review‑specific system prompt, and a
`Config.review_model`.
- `EnteredReviewMode`: emitted when the child review session starts.
Every event from this point onwards reflects the review session.
- `ExitedReviewMode(Option<ReviewOutputEvent>)`: emitted when the review
finishes or is interrupted, with optional structured findings:
```json
{
"findings": [
{
"title": "<≤ 80 chars, imperative>",
"body": "<valid Markdown explaining *why* this is a problem; cite files/lines/functions>",
"confidence_score": <float 0.0-1.0>,
"priority": <int 0-3>,
"code_location": {
"absolute_file_path": "<file path>",
"line_range": {"start": <int>, "end": <int>}
}
}
],
"overall_correctness": "patch is correct" | "patch is incorrect",
"overall_explanation": "<1-3 sentence explanation justifying the overall_correctness verdict>",
"overall_confidence_score": <float 0.0-1.0>
}
```
## Questions
### Why separate out its own message history?
We want the review thread to match the training of our review models as
much as possible -- that means using a custom prompt, removing user
instructions, and starting a clean chat history.
We also want to make sure the review thread doesn't leak into the parent
thread.
### Why do this as a mode, vs. sub-agents?
1. We want review to be a synchronous task, so it's fine for now to do a
bespoke implementation.
2. We're still unclear about the final structure for sub-agents. We'd
prefer to land this quickly and then refactor into sub-agents without
rushing that implementation.
