Adds a "View Stack" to the bottom pane to allow for pushing/popping
bottom panels.
`esc` will go back instead of dismissing.
Benefit: We retain the "selection state" of a parent panel (e.g. the
review panel).
Backtracking multiple times could drop earlier turns. We now derive the
active user-turn positions from the transcript on demand (keying off the
latest session header) instead of caching state. This keeps the replayed
context intact during repeated edits and adds a regression test.
The only file to watch is the cargo.toml
All the others come from just fix + a few manual small fix
The set of rules have been taken from the list of clippy rules
arbitrarily while trying to optimise the learning and style of the code
while limiting the loss of productivity
Adds the following options:
1. Review current changes
2. Review a specific commit
3. Review against a base branch (PR style)
4. Custom instructions
<img width="487" height="330" alt="Screenshot 2025-09-20 at 2 11 36 PM"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/edb0aaa5-5747-47fa-881f-cc4c4f7fe8bc"
/>
---
\+ Adds the following UI helpers:
1. Makes list selection searchable
2. Adds navigation to the bottom pane, so you could add a stack of
popups
3. Basic custom prompt view
Reported height was `20` instead of `21`, so `area.height >=
MIN_ANIMATION_HEIGHT` was `false` and therefore `show_animation` was
`false`, so the animation never displayed.
Changes:
- skip the welcome animation when the terminal area is below 60x21
- skip the model upgrade animation when the terminal area is below 60x24
to avoid clipping
---------
Co-authored-by: Michael Bolin <mbolin@openai.com>
Summary
- common: use exact equality for Swiftfox exclusion to avoid hiding
future slugs that merely contain the substring
- core: treat missing internal_storage.json as expected (debug), warn
only on real IO/parse errors
- tui: drop DEBUG_HIGH gate; always consider showing rollout prompt, but
suppress under ApiKey auth mode
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
No (intended) functional change.
This refactors the transcript view to hold a list of HistoryCells
instead of a list of Lines. This simplifies and makes much of the logic
more robust, as well as laying the groundwork for future changes, e.g.
live-updating history cells in the transcript.
Similar to #2879 in goal. Fixes#2755.
## 📝 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.
