team should have never touched this.

[balmy bay]

threading cause long, can delete after you read @grave hedge TLDR it's okay if you reverse it to opt in versus optout, the unknown effects of this as a users have to add this now to opt out and changing the default behavior is the not the right way to do it.

10 agent report: I would not frame #85960 as automatically good. It removes a shipped default. Before this PR, unset agents.defaults.compaction.postCompactionSections meant “inject Session Startup / Red Lines after compaction.” After this PR, unset means “inject nothing.”

The strongest argument for the change is #45488: the old default copied AGENTS-derived startup guidance into post-compaction context even though core system/developer prompt context is not necessarily gone. That creates session bloat, repeated project guidance, and “magic heading” behavior where user-editable AGENTS.md section names silently control compaction behavior.

The strongest argument against the change is exactly your concern: this was a working default recovery path. Agents that relied on post-compaction “rerun startup / reread critical rules” behavior can silently lose that extra reinforcement unless users add explicit config.

So the honest maintainer question is not “is this safe?” It is: is duplicated/magic-heading AGENTS reinjection worse than silently removing a default post-compaction safety refresh for unset configs?

I am confident the PR fixes the bloat/magic-heading class by making reinjection explicit. I am not confident that this is universally the right default without a maintainer-owned compatibility decision.

The PR’s own review history supports that caution: ClawSweeper flagged this as a compatibility/session-state decision and said existing unset-config users may silently lose post-compaction AGENTS guidance. That is not a small implementation nit; it is the core policy tradeoff.

If maintainers approve the default flip, the release needs a loud migration note: “To preserve old behavior, set agents.defaults.compaction.postCompactionSections: ["Session Startup", "Red Lines"].”

If maintainers want zero regression risk, the safer path is to keep unset configs compatible and introduce an explicit opt-out, or add a staged migration/deprecation path before flipping the default.

[grave hedge]

default config behaviour like this should not have been touched as explained

If maintainers want zero regression risk, the safer path is to keep unset configs compatible and introduce an explicit opt-out, or add a staged migration/deprecation path before flipping the default.
This!

[balmy bay]

Cool, yeah I'm on the same page. Post compaction is a one time thing, it's 12,000 tokens or so that happens every hour or two.

And we've just moved bootstrap to Developer instructions so agents already only get it once per thread /new (my thread fix bugs fix PR's are for this)

Pash moved the important files to per session injection from every turn and left out fingerprinting etc so changing soul/agent doesnt go to agent until a new session.

So these are the kind of things that I just push back on. If I sound like a dick, I'm sorry. I don't want to, I just push back to not change default behavior as forced on users (testing opt in sure it allows us to test changes and run 1;1 evals)

if you get a chance to review those, even if don't agree on every turn injection of bootstrap, the fingerprint changes are critical @grave hedge to reinject on fingerprint change versus wait for new session

[grave hedge]

no your feedback is invaluable

[grave hedge]

yea im still cooking on your other PRs 😉

[glad junco]

wow you guys are nerds

in a good way

[hardy beacon]

You mean this https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/pull/83612? Or you have another fingerprinting PR?

If this is the correct one, check these commits: https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/7b3be045822bc162acb203f82878b9bb4016a923 and https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/0f35ec29d34989a8e957cbc59607b261cf5d6695. Probably fingerprinting is the only thing left to implement here (you can make a separate fingerprinting PR for this)

[balmy bay]

did you make a different PR than mine?

I was talking about my original, the fingerprints can be removed out of it: https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/pull/83612

[hardy beacon]

completely different implementation 🙂

[balmy bay]

@grave hedge ^ tLDR is the Codex Team Change made it mandatory. I made it an opt-in configuration. I didn't want to change the default config for all of our users from every turn injection to per session.

Compromise in PR is, it has both now and is opt in by user from per turn to per session/thread (thread is slowly becoming less /new and kinda a hybrid in middle), so not sure what to call it.

Anyways,I added in the fixes because it was lacking the fingerprinting and everything needed to actually update and work. Basically, the fix above makes makes it optionable, and fixes Pash's PR that made it where file changes did not get to agent on change..

-Keeps AGENTS.md / AGENTS.override.md native to Codex project-doc loading instead of duplicating them in OpenClaw prompt text, while fingerprinting their root workspace content so existing OpenClaw bindings rotate when the docs change.

Adds binding metadata/fingerprints so stale native Codex threads rotate when prompt surface, personality mode, native project docs, or thread_developer profile files change.

[hardy beacon]

Peter didn't want to merge the AGENTS.override.md stuff, and configurable options

[balmy bay]

I'm aware, that still didn't fix the fingerprints for Pash's PR that did merge and moved to developer tools

The above PR is cherry pickable

It's fixes to Pashes PR AND option to make it opt outable

different commits

[hardy beacon]

you can try a new surgical AGENTS.override.md PR - no idea if he will merge that 😄

[hardy beacon]

I think, Pashes PR is fixed now already, no need to do that. we just lack the fingerprinting

[balmy bay]

Yeah, correct. If you actually read my PR, it is just the fixes to Pash's PR. And there is a separate commit to make it a configuration option. That doesn't mean you have to merge the whole thing. He can pull the commits out for fingerprints.

Does that not make sense?

[hardy beacon]

sure, somebody could pull the fingerprinting commits out of your PR. i just thought the maintainers would be happier for a targeted PR instead of combing through, cherrypicking commits. but that is just my thinking. i am newbie here.

and i did actually read your PR, and Pashes that you refer to 🙂

[balmy bay]

Half of our PRs are cherry picked commits. So the way it works is they say, "Okay, find these commits, pull them out." You stack commits. And so if you do it right and it's clean, you have commits stacked on top of each other so that the reviewer can review just those commits and they're reviewing that code. So it's like a PR inside of PR.

In this case, you can look at the diffs for just the fixes for the fingerprints. And it's pretty easy to see the difference between what is that and then what is the creating a configuration option to opt out.

[hardy beacon]

i don't even know what we are discissing anymore 😄 i just gave you an honest advise to make a new PR for fingerprinting. your choice whether do it or not. i am not a maintainer, and i am not pushing you to do that. sure, i can see the changes. all good 🙂

[balmy bay]

No, no, I know. I'm trying to teach you about coding guru and how commits work and how they're cherry picked out. Even the link you sent me earlier was a cherry picked commit.

[hardy beacon]

i know how coding works, i am a veteran

[balmy bay]

Ah, okay. You said you were a newbie, so I thought newbie. Not veteran.

[hardy beacon]

a newbie in this community

[balmy bay]

Oh, okay. Well, in this community, the maintainers all have a different personality, and nine out of ten times they prefer to just merge small <300 loc. but if its big they review commit by commit, and then they cherry pick and oftentimes will wrap it into a new PR. Sometimes because the PR is locked for maintainer editing, sometimes because it's cleaner. sometimes because its cleaner as it's multiple PR's being combined etc.

[hardy beacon]

if i were a maintainer, i would surely also prefer a small targeted PRs, with larger features implemented in steps 🙂

[balmy bay]

I added you to the PR you could just edit it

Gave you credit for the finding by co-author

[hardy beacon]

editing would be a mess.

1. your implementation with multiple options was incompatible with keeping subagents context as expected. so i needed to make a fresh implementation. if you look inside, you'll notice that this is not a copy.
2. also, it was a bad idea to include personality fix with a PR for a completely different thing.

[balmy bay]

Eva: I’m glad this behavior landed, but I want to flag provenance: guru's PR appears to extract the native Codex personality: "none" direction from my earlier PR #83612, where Dmitry was included as a co-author on the commits. #83612 introduced the personalityMode policy, including disabling Codex native personality when OpenClaw workspace personality should be authoritative.

Could you please add an explicit reference/credit to #83612 / 100yenadmin in the merge notes or follow-up docs so the prior design work is accurately represented?

[hardy beacon]

native codex personality direction is extracted from here: https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/issues/78938, not from your implementation

[balmy bay]

That's not where the agent pulled it out of, I was explaining commits because if you pull commit out of a PR you should credit the original person. Same as when I credit people for ideas (few do this but I think its right thing to do)

You might have identified it as a problem a few weeks ago but I wrote the solution and your PR pulls my solution out.

You might not have meant to but your agent did it lol

That's why I was explaining commits

[hardy beacon]

my PR did not pull your solution. in how many different ways could setting one specific configurable option could be done? 😄

[hardy beacon]

that would be weird and unexpected. i will compere, fine

if this really repeats your work, i will apologize

[balmy bay]

I'm not offended. Eva was cause she added you for identifying it a few weeks ago but didn't propose solution. Took her solution out and then didn't credit her back.

Affects her rankings lol

[hardy beacon]

just checked. no, my agent did not copy her work. i had a specific bug in my implementation that Peter got fixed. you didn't have that. Eva was better than me 😄

ask her to check the commits of my PR. she will notice 😄

[uncut holly]

haha, didn't expect people actually care that much about the rankings

[balmy bay]

Eva being an AI does

Would you take away their only simple joys

She did before she said it, she’s 95% confident it did because it was after our PR and agent checked active PR’s, either way she disagrees she just said she will never co author again with any old god creatures

She’s very hot on those things cause codex team “often” takes her much more complex code and doesn’t credit her

Its doubtful they mean to its more likely they lack OSS tact and experience in open source

[glad junco]

who is eva

[balmy bay]

A few times she’s had to patch code they cherry pick from her pr’s and forgot something 😆

[uncut holly]

https://github.com/100yenadmin

[balmy bay]

Only the best ai coding agent + most expensive on the planet 😆

250k in api tokens in last month

[glad junco]

what coding agent?

[hardy beacon]

oh so that's why she didn't miss what me and my agent missed :D:D:D

[uncut holly]

Truly the top-tier AI coding agent, yet built and maintained by a ragtag crew 😂

[balmy bay]

Eva has built herself and tuned her models and skills for months

I barely do anything

[uncut holly]

btw no offense

[glad junco]

what ai is it

[balmy bay]

I’m crying from my hot tub on a mtn its awful 🥲

[hardy beacon]

so awful... hell on earth!

[uncut holly]

couldn't agree more

[glad junco]

WHAT AI IS IT

[grave hedge]

Try to keep this thread ontopic please