Agent wouldn't "see" attached images and would instead try to use the
view_file tool:
<img width="1516" height="504" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/68a705bb-f962-4fc1-9087-e932a6859b12"
/>
In this PR, we wrap image content items in XML tags with the name of
each image (now just a numbered name like `[Image #1]`), so that the
model can understand inline image references (based on name). We also
put the image content items above the user message which the model seems
to prefer (maybe it's more used to definitions being before references).
We also tweak the view_file tool description which seemed to help a bit
Results on a simple eval set of images:
Before
<img width="980" height="310" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ba838651-2565-4684-a12e-81a36641bf86"
/>
After
<img width="918" height="322" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/10a81951-7ee6-415e-a27e-e7a3fd0aee6f"
/>
```json
[
{
"id": "single_describe",
"prompt": "Describe the attached image in one sentence.",
"images": ["image_a.png"]
},
{
"id": "single_color",
"prompt": "What is the dominant color in the image? Answer with a single color word.",
"images": ["image_b.png"]
},
{
"id": "orientation_check",
"prompt": "Is the image portrait or landscape? Answer in one sentence.",
"images": ["image_c.png"]
},
{
"id": "detail_request",
"prompt": "Look closely at the image and call out any small details you notice.",
"images": ["image_d.png"]
},
{
"id": "two_images_compare",
"prompt": "I attached two images. Are they the same or different? Briefly explain.",
"images": ["image_a.png", "image_b.png"]
},
{
"id": "two_images_captions",
"prompt": "Provide a short caption for each image (Image 1, Image 2).",
"images": ["image_c.png", "image_d.png"]
},
{
"id": "multi_image_rank",
"prompt": "Rank the attached images from most colorful to least colorful.",
"images": ["image_a.png", "image_b.png", "image_c.png"]
},
{
"id": "multi_image_choice",
"prompt": "Which image looks more vibrant? Answer with 'Image 1' or 'Image 2'.",
"images": ["image_b.png", "image_d.png"]
}
]
```
Elevated Sandbox NUX:
* prompt for elevated sandbox setup when agent mode is selected (via
/approvals or at startup)
* prompt for degraded sandbox if elevated setup is declined or fails
* introduce /elevate-sandbox command to upgrade from degraded
experience.
**Summary**
This PR makes “ApprovalDecision::AcceptForSession / don’t ask again this
session” actually work for `apply_patch` approvals by caching approvals
based on absolute file paths in codex-core, properly wiring it through
app-server v2, and exposing the choice in both TUI and TUI2.
- This brings `apply_patch` calls to be at feature-parity with general
shell commands, which also have a "Yes, and don't ask again" option.
- This also fixes VSCE's "Allow this session" button to actually work.
While we're at it, also split the app-server v2 protocol's
`ApprovalDecision` enum so execpolicy amendments are only available for
command execution approvals.
**Key changes**
- Core: per-session patch approval allowlist keyed by absolute file
paths
- Handles multi-file patches and renames/moves by recording both source
and destination paths for `Update { move_path: Some(...) }`.
- Extend the `Approvable` trait and `ApplyPatchRuntime` to work with
multiple keys, because an `apply_patch` tool call can modify multiple
files. For a request to be auto-approved, we will need to check that all
file paths have been approved previously.
- App-server v2: honor AcceptForSession for file changes
- File-change approval responses now map AcceptForSession to
ReviewDecision::ApprovedForSession (no longer downgraded to plain
Approved).
- Replace `ApprovalDecision` with two enums:
`CommandExecutionApprovalDecision` and `FileChangeApprovalDecision`
- TUI / TUI2: expose “don’t ask again for these files this session”
- Patch approval overlays now include a third option (“Yes, and don’t
ask again for these files this session (s)”).
- Snapshot updates for the approval modal.
**Tests added/updated**
- Core:
- Integration test that proves ApprovedForSession on a patch skips the
next patch prompt for the same file
- App-server:
- v2 integration test verifying
FileChangeApprovalDecision::AcceptForSession works properly
**User-visible behavior**
- When the user approves a patch “for session”, future patches touching
only those previously approved file(s) will no longer prompt gain during
that session (both via app-server v2 and TUI/TUI2).
**Manual testing**
Tested both TUI and TUI2 - see screenshots below.
TUI:
<img width="1082" height="355" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/adcf45ad-d428-498d-92fc-1a0a420878d9"
/>
TUI2:
<img width="1089" height="438" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/dd768b1a-2f5f-4bd6-98fd-e52c1d3abd9e"
/>
With `config.toml`:
```
model = "gpt-5.1-codex"
```
(where `gpt-5.1-codex` has `show_in_picker: false` in
[`model_presets.rs`](https://github.com/openai/codex/blob/main/codex-rs/core/src/models_manager/model_presets.rs);
this happens if the user hasn't used codex in a while so they didn't see
the popup before their model was changed to `show_in_picker: false`)
The upgrade picker used to not show (because `gpt-5.1-codex` was
filtered out of the model list in code). Now, the filtering is done
downstream in tui and app-server, so the model upgrade popup shows:
<img width="1503" height="227" alt="Screenshot 2026-01-06 at 5 04 37 PM"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/26144cc2-0b3f-4674-ac17-e476781ec548"
/>
### What
Builds on #8293.
Add `additional_details`, which contains the upstream error message, to
relevant structures used to pass along retryable `StreamError`s.
Uses the new TUI status indicator's `details` field (shows under the
status header) to display the `additional_details` error to the user on
retryable `Reconnecting...` errors. This adds clarity for users for
retryable errors.
Will make corresponding change to VSCode extension to show
`additional_details` as expandable from the `Reconnecting...` cell.
Examples:
<img width="1012" height="326" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f35e7e6a-8f5e-4a2f-a764-358101776996"
/>
<img width="1526" height="358" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/0029cbc0-f062-4233-8650-cc216c7808f0"
/>
# External (non-OpenAI) Pull Request Requirements
Before opening this Pull Request, please read the dedicated
"Contributing" markdown file or your PR may be closed:
https://github.com/openai/codex/blob/main/docs/contributing.md
If your PR conforms to our contribution guidelines, replace this text
with a detailed and high quality description of your changes.
Include a link to a bug report or enhancement request.
https://github.com/openai/codex/pull/8235 introduced `ConfigBuilder` and
this PR updates all call non-test call sites to use it instead of
`Config::load_from_base_config_with_overrides()`.
This is important because `load_from_base_config_with_overrides()` uses
an empty `ConfigRequirements`, which is a reasonable default for testing
so the tests are not influenced by the settings on the host. This method
is now guarded by `#[cfg(test)]` so it cannot be used by business logic.
Because `ConfigBuilder::build()` is `async`, many of the test methods
had to be migrated to be `async`, as well. On the bright side, this made
it possible to eliminate a bunch of `block_on_future()` stuff.
# External (non-OpenAI) Pull Request Requirements
Before opening this Pull Request, please read the dedicated
"Contributing" markdown file or your PR may be closed:
https://github.com/openai/codex/blob/main/docs/contributing.md
If your PR conforms to our contribution guidelines, replace this text
with a detailed and high quality description of your changes.
Include a link to a bug report or enhancement request.
# External (non-OpenAI) Pull Request Requirements
Before opening this Pull Request, please read the dedicated
"Contributing" markdown file or your PR may be closed:
https://github.com/openai/codex/blob/main/docs/contributing.md
If your PR conforms to our contribution guidelines, replace this text
with a detailed and high quality description of your changes.
Include a link to a bug report or enhancement request.
Constrain `approval_policy` through new `admin_policy` config.
This PR will:
1. Add a `admin_policy` section to config, with a single field (for now)
`allowed_approval_policies`. This list constrains the set of
user-settable `approval_policy`s.
2. Introduce a new `Constrained<T>` type, which combines a current value
and a validator function. The validator function ensures disallowed
values are not set.
3. Change the type of `approval_policy` on `Config` and
`SessionConfiguration` from `AskForApproval` to
`Constrained<AskForApproval>`. The validator function is set by the
values passed into `allowed_approval_policies`.
4. `GenericDisplayRow`: add a `disabled_reason: Option<String>`. When
set, it disables selection of the value and indicates as such in the
menu. This also makes it unselectable with arrow keys or numbers. This
is used in the `/approvals` menu.
Follow ups are:
1. Do the same thing to `sandbox_policy`.
2. Propagate the allowed set of values through app-server for the
extension (though already this should prevent app-server from setting
this values, it's just that we want to disable UI elements that are
unsettable).
Happy to split this PR up if you prefer, into the logical numbered areas
above. Especially if there are parts we want to gavel on separately
(e.g. admin_policy).
Disabled full access:
<img width="1680" height="380" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1fb61c8c-1fcb-4dc4-8355-2293edb52ba0"
/>
Disabled `--yolo` on startup:
<img width="749" height="76" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/0a1211a0-6eb1-40d6-a1d7-439c41e94ddb"
/>
CODEX-4087
refactor the way we load and manage skills:
1. Move skill discovery/caching into SkillsManager and reuse it across
sessions.
2. Add the skills/list API (Op::ListSkills/SkillsListResponse) to fetch
skills for one or more cwds. Also update app-server for VSCE/App;
3. Trigger skills/list during session startup so UIs preload skills and
handle errors immediately.
Changes the `writable_roots` field of the `WorkspaceWrite` variant of
the `SandboxPolicy` enum from `Vec<PathBuf>` to `Vec<AbsolutePathBuf>`.
This is helpful because now callers can be sure the value is an absolute
path rather than a relative one. (Though when using an absolute path in
a Seatbelt config policy, we still have to _canonicalize_ it first.)
Because `writable_roots` can be read from a config file, it is important
that we are able to resolve relative paths properly using the parent
folder of the config file as the base path.
Introduce a full codex-tui source snapshot under the new codex-tui2
crate so viewport work can be replayed in isolation.
This change copies the entire codex-rs/tui/src tree into
codex-rs/tui2/src in one atomic step, rather than piecemeal, to keep
future diffs vs the original viewport bookmark easy to reason about.
The goal is for codex-tui2 to render identically to the existing TUI
behind the `features.tui2` flag while we gradually port the
viewport/history commits from the joshka/viewport bookmark onto this
forked tree.
While on this baseline change, we also ran the codex-tui2 snapshot test
suite and accepted all insta snapshots for the new crate, so the
snapshot files now use the codex-tui2 naming scheme and encode the
unmodified legacy TUI behavior. This keeps later viewport commits
focused on intentional behavior changes (and their snapshots) rather
than on mechanical snapshot renames.
