Skip to content

docs(rfd): add error classification RFD - #2755

Open
slapoguzov wants to merge 1 commit into
agentclientprotocol:mainfrom
slapoguzov:rfd/error-classification
Open

slapoguzov wants to merge 1 commit into
agentclientprotocol:mainfrom
slapoguzov:rfd/error-classification

Conversation

@slapoguzov

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Adds a draft RFD for classifying errors that end a prompt turn.

Today a Client gets a JSON-RPC code and a message, and most failures use -32603. It cannot tell a rate limit from an exhausted usage plan or a context window overflow, so it cannot decide whether to offer a retry. Agents already know the cause: the Claude Agent SDK and the Codex app-server both report typed errors, but ACP has no place for them.

The RFD adds three optional fields to the data object of the existing JSON-RPC error:

  • kind: an open enum such as rate_limited, usage_limit, context_window_exceeded, overloaded, or invalid_request. Custom values start with _.
  • retryable: whether the same request, sent again without changes, may succeed. Absent means unknown.
  • retryAfterMs: the minimum delay before trying again, when the provider gives one.

The fields work the same way in a failed session/prompt response and in the error of an idle state_update with stopReason: "error", which fills the gap the v2 prompt lifecycle RFD left for "finer categories ... in data". Authentication keeps -32000. No new error codes or capabilities are added.

The RFD includes a mapping from current Claude and Codex errors to the proposed kinds.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Proposes optional `kind`, `retryable`, and `retryAfterMs` fields in the
`data` object of JSON-RPC errors, so Clients can tell rate limits, usage
limits, context overflow, and other failures apart without parsing the
message.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@mintlify

mintlify Bot commented Nov 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Preview approval required

This pull request comes from a fork, so Mintlify won't build a preview until someone with write access approves commit 4d5301a.

Approve preview

@slapoguzov
slapoguzov marked this pull request as ready for review November 3, 2026 15:09
@slapoguzov
slapoguzov requested a review from a team as a code owner November 3, 2026 15:09

This branch has not been deployed

No deployments
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant