subagent_run gives a self-contained piece of work to a helper carrying the
parent's connection, directory, model and effort, and hands its answer back as
the tool result. The mechanism is the one scheduled runs already use -- a hidden
chat, one turn, wake_chat, and a poll -- so tools, rounds, budgets, metrics and
steps all work with no second implementation. The two alternatives were
rejected where they had already been rejected once: a nested Generation is two
replies writing one transcript, and a one-shot complete() has no tools, which
schedule/runner.py records as useless for exactly this case.
Every restriction is a property of the child's row, applied by resolve_tools
after the gates, because a rule that lives in a system message is one a page the
model just read can argue with. No questions, no recursion, nothing that writes
unless the call asked for it and the parent's own mode would not have stopped
first, and commands only from a fixed read-only list -- in every mode including
Auto, because the task text can have come from a page.
Withdrawing ask_user turned out to be half of "nobody is watching". An approval
still built a card nobody could see and parked the reply until approval_timeout,
which from every screen is the feature not working. Chat.unattended is the
question now, and not the kind: _authorise answers with a refusal instead. A
scheduled task's chat had the same hole and is covered by the same flag.
Three bounds, counted where each is knowable: per reply on the parent's
Generation, instance-wide in a set a restart clears, and per helper in settings
of its own so one runs out of room long before the reply that asked. Past the
clock the helper is stopped rather than abandoned, so a partial answer comes
back with a sentence saying so.
Also: four gates had shipped into the scope menu with no name, taking the first
tool's label instead -- the canvas switch read "Canvas written". There is a test
that refuses a family without one.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
There were none. `workflow.DEFAULTS` was the only source, so 512x512, euler and
twenty steps were what every instance got whatever card it was running on -- and
512 square on an SDXL checkpoint is precisely what the tool's own description
warns produces duplicated limbs. The two ways round it were both bad: bake
literals into a template where the placeholders should be, or write prose in the
instructions box and hope.
Three rungs now, most specific winning, with DEFAULTS staying underneath as the
floor so an instance that sets nothing behaves exactly as it did and a floor
improved in code still reaches everybody. An empty box is "no opinion" rather
than zero, which matters: read as a number it would set every instance to zero
steps, and ComfyUI refuses that in a way that looks like a broken model.
The right control for each, because a text box is wrong for most of them. The
samplers and schedulers were already being discovered by the Test button, stored,
and read by nothing at all -- they are the pickers now. A stored value missing
from the list is kept as an option anyway, or opening this page and pressing Save
would silently clear a working setting. Checkpoints are chosen rather than typed,
and the instance default is a rung of its own instead of "whatever happens to be
first in a textarea somebody filled in some order".
And batch, at last: `batch_size` was a literal 1 in the base template, so an
administrator whose card can comfortably make four had no way of saying so.
Deliberately not something a model may set -- one asking for six because it is
unsure is the exact cost this must not invite.
The tool's schema restates the defaults it quotes. Every "Default 20." in there
was written when there was one set of defaults in the world; left alone, an
instance drawing at 1024 would go on telling the model 512, and the model reasons
from that sentence rather than ignoring it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Asked to remind somebody every Monday, a model looked down its tool list, found
notes_create described as "something worth having in a later conversation" and
memory_add beginning with the word Remember, wrote a note, and reported that it
had scheduled something. Every screen agreed with it. There was no scheduling
tool at all -- the near-misses were the only thing there was to reach for, and
nothing anywhere said the thing it was being asked for existed.
The seam had been left open on purpose: Schedule.origin has defined
ORIGIN_MODEL, with no writer, since scheduling shipped, and services/schedules.py
says in its first line that it holds what the routes *and the tools* both need.
This is the tool that was meant to go through it.
Four of them, and a thin layer: rule.validate is still the one total normaliser
the form and the compile share, schedules.create still writes the row and the
task chat together, and rule.describe still says what came out. A second dialect
for models would mean two definitions of "every other Tuesday" and one of them
going quietly wrong.
The result is that description, never "done". A schedule is invisible until it
fires, which may be days away, so the sentence in the reply is the only moment
anybody can check that Monday was read as Monday -- and the tool says so, in the
text the model reads back. The list badges the ones nobody typed.
Gated on schedule.use rather than a permission of its own: somebody who may set
one up by hand may say so to a model instead, and a second checkbox beside the
first would only ever be answered "the same as that one".
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
`hx-get=""` is not "fetch nothing". htmx looks for the attribute, not for a
value, so the empty one the canvas rendered before a chat existed was a real
request for the empty path -- which the browser resolves against the current
document. Opening the canvas on the new-chat screen fetched the new-chat screen
and swapped the whole site into the panel. The attribute is omitted now, and a
test refuses an empty verb anywhere on the page.
Which panels can exist is the server's answer; which are offered is the
browser's. Both need an agent chat on a chosen connection, and before a chat
exists those are controls in the composer -- so answering with the first profile
offered a terminal on an ordinary chat with nothing selected. They follow
`lembas:agent-target` now, and an open panel whose target goes away is closed
rather than left showing one machine under another's name.
`.tabs__body` is only sometimes the scroller: true where the tabs are a bounded
flex child, false under the admin layout, where the page scrolls instead. So
setting its scrollTop on every tab change had never once run on /admin/prompts,
silently, while the reader was dragged to the bottom of a document that had just
got shorter. The rule names the position now, and the handler finds the
container that actually scrolls.
The two top borders come off. They were what made the misalignment at the bottom
of the shell visible; `--footer-height` stays, because two ends at different
heights are visible without a line to prove it. The top of the shell keeps its
line -- there, everything is `--header-height` and aligns by construction.
And one version. pyproject carried its own copy and had drifted three minors
from the one everything actually reads.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Jaroslav Beneš