Skip to content

Add Admin runtime reasoning controls - #348

Closed
16francej wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
codex/admin-runtime-controls-upstream
Closed

Add Admin runtime reasoning controls#348
16francej wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
codex/admin-runtime-controls-upstream

Conversation

@16francej

@16francej 16francej commented Aug 12, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Spec diff: none.

Summary

  • add reasoning-level and fast-mode controls to the Admin default runtime card
  • validate each option against the selected harness and model
  • carry persisted defaults through runtime resolution so Slack and core turns inherit them
  • preserve the controls when legacy clients update only the model

Verification

  • node --experimental-test-module-mocks --test test/admin-resources.test.ts
  • node --experimental-test-module-mocks --test test/runtime-selection.test.ts
  • npm --prefix plugins/admin test
  • npm run typecheck
  • npm run lint
  • live Admin save/reload in a production-shaped dev instance
  • fresh Slack DM returned the requested exact response while the persisted request recorded claude-opus-5 with speed=fast
  • independent adversarial review of exact commit bc73d6300 found no actionable issues

Screenshot

Admin default runtime controls


View with [code]smith Autofix with [code]smith
Need help on this PR? Tag @codesmith-bot with what you need. Autofix is disabled.

@16francej
16francej marked this pull request as ready for review August 12, 2026 00:49
@time-attack

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

I reproduced a runtime-default mismatch on the current head (713e534). The web PUT /v1/runtime-config endpoint accepts Codex with effortLevel: "max", returns HTTP 200, and echoes "max" as the effective saved default. Resolving that same persisted selection through resolveRuntimeChoiceDurable() returns no effortLevel, so the UI reports a default that actual turns silently ignore.

Could this PR update the surface endpoint to validate with thinkingLevelsForHarness(harnessId) and gate fast mode with harnessSupportsFastMode(harnessId), matching the Admin endpoint and shared resolver? A focused regression test should verify that unsupported combinations such as Codex max are rejected rather than persisted.

@time-attack

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Thanks for this, @16francej — and sorry for the slow response.

We're closing this PR. Per CONTRIBUTING.md, since coding agents write most of the underlying code now, we'd rather receive feature ideas as a short human-written note in adrs/ — informal is great, just the idea in your own words — and bugs as a plain issue. If we're aligned we're happy to burn our own tokens on the implementation, and we'll credit you as co-author.

We don't want your idea to get lost, so we've captured it in #797 to triage on our side. Please feel free to open an adrs/ note if you feel strongly about the approach. Appreciate you engaging with the repo!

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.

2 participants