We need to construct the history different when compact happens. For
this, we need to just consider the history after compact and convert
compact to a response item.
This needs to change and use `build_compact_history` when this #3446 is
merged.
## 📝 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.
We have two ways of loading conversation with a previous history. Fork
conversation and the experimental resume that we had before. In this PR,
I am unifying their code path. The path is getting the history items and
recording them in a brand new conversation. This PR also constraint the
rollout recorder responsibilities to be only recording to the disk and
loading from the disk.
The PR also fixes a current bug when we have two forking in a row:
History 1:
<Environment Context>
UserMessage_1
UserMessage_2
UserMessage_3
**Fork with n = 1 (only remove one element)**
History 2:
<Environment Context>
UserMessage_1
UserMessage_2
<Environment Context>
**Fork with n = 1 (only remove one element)**
History 2:
<Environment Context>
UserMessage_1
UserMessage_2
**<Environment Context>**
This shouldn't happen but because we were appending the `<Environment
Context>` after each spawning and it's considered as _user message_.
Now, we don't add this message if restoring and old conversation.
this dramatically improves time to run `cargo test -p codex-core` (~25x
speedup).
before:
```
cargo test -p codex-core 35.96s user 68.63s system 19% cpu 8:49.80 total
```
after:
```
cargo test -p codex-core 5.51s user 8.16s system 63% cpu 21.407 total
```
both tests measured "hot", i.e. on a 2nd run with no filesystem changes,
to exclude compile times.
approach inspired by [Delete Cargo Integration
Tests](https://matklad.github.io/2021/02/27/delete-cargo-integration-tests.html),
we move all test cases in tests/ into a single suite in order to have a
single binary, as there is significant overhead for each test binary
executed, and because test execution is only parallelized with a single
binary.
