Correcting a command before allowing it
An approval card was Allow, Always, or Don't. A model proposing the right command with one flag wrong therefore cost a whole round trip to explain in prose. There is an Edit button on it now. Where the edit lands is the whole of the feature, and it is one line. `arguments` is the list `_run_calls` hands to `run_tool` as `parsed=`, and `run_tool` never re-parses -- so writing into it inside `_authorise` is the only mutation the runner can see. Editing the Item would do nothing: it is frozen and display-only. Two things had to move with it. The raw `call["arguments"]` string is rewritten beside the parsed dict, and the assistant turn is now built *after* `_authorise` rather than before it -- the old order told the model it ran what it proposed while something else ran, and every later round would have reasoned from a transcript that was quietly false. And `_remember_always` reads the edit, or "always allow this" would store a standing permission for a command nobody approved; it still derives the pattern itself through `policy.subject`, which yields nothing for a composed command line. Nothing is re-checked against the mode or the lists, and that is not a shortcut. The deny list resolves to ASK rather than to a refusal -- it means "always ask about this" -- so a person who has typed the command and pressed Allow is exactly the asking it was demanding, and re-asking would put the same card up with no way past it. It is the line the terminal panel already draws. The box is only offered where the detail *is* an argument and can be put back: a tool with no entry in `tool_labels.DETAIL_KEYS` gets a `k=repr(v)` summary, and a box there would silently change nothing. Both halves are always in the DOM with one hidden, rather than the field being created on click -- a field that does not exist until a handler runs is a field that submits nothing if the handler fails, and this one decides what runs on somebody's machine. The transcript says "edited by you". Attributing somebody's own typing to a model is the same misattribution as the other way round. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
co-authored by
Claude Opus 5
parent
ec12c3a981
commit
ab2e74974b
@@ -85,6 +85,12 @@ class Item:
|
||||
purpose: str = ""
|
||||
options: tuple[str, ...] = ()
|
||||
allow_free_text: bool = True
|
||||
# Whether `detail` can be corrected before this is allowed. Only where the
|
||||
# detail *is* one argument and can be put back where it came from -- a tool
|
||||
# with no entry in `tool_labels.DETAIL_KEYS` gets a `k=repr(v)` summary that
|
||||
# cannot be parsed back, and offering a box that silently changed nothing
|
||||
# would be worse than offering none.
|
||||
editable: bool = False
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@dataclass
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user