Two different jobs were sharing one number. A plain conversation asking a
question is one round of looking things up and then an answer; the rounds after
that were a small model that had decided searching was the answer searching
until the context ran out, at a full request each. MAX_ROUNDS is 1 now. Several
tools can still be called within that round, which is the thing worth telling
the model.
The trade is real and worth naming: a plain chat can no longer search and then
read one of the results, because reading is a second round. That is what an
agent chat is for.
An agent chat is sized by Limits instead, where steps is now a runaway backstop
and not a working budget. It was 40 and it was reached -- a step count low
enough to be the thing that ends a reply is a count that ends it halfway. What
bounds one now is the wall clock and a new completion-token ceiling, with zero
meaning no ceiling, the same convention index_chars already uses.
That ceiling would have been decorative. generation.completion_tokens is only
populated when the endpoint sends a usage block, and llama.cpp, Ollama and
friends never do; the fallback estimate is computed once, in _run's finally,
long after the loop that needs it. So _written takes the larger of reported and
estimated, and there is a test that runs the whole thing against a stream
reporting no usage at all. A limit that works on OpenAI and silently does
nothing everywhere else is the worst kind: one that looks configured.
core.rounds could not stay one fragment. "You get at most N rounds" is not the
same sentence with a different number in it -- a model told it has a budget
rations it and stops early to report progress, which is exactly the behaviour
that strands a long piece of work. So it splits: core.rounds keeps the
one-round case and gates on a new round_budget variable that _agent_values
blanks, and core.keep_working says the other thing to an agent chat.
A queued message during a one-round reply is now never taken mid-reply -- there
is no work under way to steer -- and falls through to _drain, which gives it a
reply of its own. No code change went with that; it falls out of the guard, and
there is a test so that "it happens to work" and "it is meant to work" stop
looking the same.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
An agent chat will act on a machine you choose, so this is the screen where
you choose it. User-owned like a note, not admin-owned like a connection:
these are somebody's own machines and somebody's own keys, and "anyone in
this group may log in to my server" is a different feature with a different
blast radius. services/sharing.py is deliberately not involved either --
sharing grants reading, and a host somebody else can read is a host they
can log in to.
Trust on first use, made explicit rather than assumed. Adding a host does
not connect to it. Check looks at its key and shows you the fingerprint;
nothing is sent until you accept, because get_server_host_key completes the
key exchange and stops -- no username, no credential. Accepting pins it,
and a host that later presents a different key is refused with the reason
rather than quietly trusted. Moving a profile to another host or port
forgets the pin, since a key belongs to the machine it came from.
Four asyncssh defaults are actively wrong here and all four are passed
explicitly: every LLeMbas user shares one unix account, so `known_hosts`
would be a shared trust store, `client_keys` would authenticate one person
with another's key, `config` would let a ProxyCommand redirect the
connection, and `agent_path` would silently use $SSH_AUTH_SOCK. There is a
test for exactly that, and it needs no server.
Files go over SFTP rather than through a shell. The SSH exec protocol
carries one command *string* that the far side parses, with no argv form at
all, so a model-supplied path in a command line is unavoidably a quoting
problem. Over SFTP a path is a path.
Chat gains its kind, connection, project directory and mode; the first
three are fixed once a chat has a message, because a transcript whose
earlier turns ran somewhere else is not one conversation.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Jaroslav Beneš