fix(cli): generate --llms-full from live schemas - #474
Conversation
|
@codex review |
|
Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Nice work! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 5789da8956
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review |
|
Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: d2e63a0a1d
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
…/codex/fix-llms-full-manifest
|
@codex review Please review the current head, |
|
Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 59ae515c1f
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review Please review the current head, |
|
Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Nice work! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
zcrab-oai
left a comment
zcrab-oai
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed the generated CLI reference against actual command schemas; verified scoped equals-form options and repeatable-value constraints.
|
@codex review Please review the current head, |
|
Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Delightful! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
|
@codex review Please review exact head |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. 🚀 Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
|
@codex security review Please review the current head |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 025bf950a1
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
mldangelo-oai
changed the title
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Another round soon, please! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: c5ad985147
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
kmbroai
left a comment
kmbroai
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Critical review
Reviewed head c5ad985147f5eaba53682cd816fd60c5c9e6f50d.
Recommendation: useful discovery improvement, with one remaining documentation correction; no new execution blocker found. Deriving accepted flags and constraints from live schemas is preferable to maintaining a second handwritten CLI reference. The Markdown adapter correctly leaves the machine-readable schemas intact.
Remaining accuracy gap
The existing comment about bulk-scan's hint still applies. It documents that CSV mode requires --output-dir, but not the reverse restriction: bulk-scan --output-dir /tmp/results without a CSV is rejected before the interactive wizard starts. Scoped bulk-scan --llms-full omits the root operating guide. Add the reverse dependency to the command-owned guidance. This is an incomplete reference, not evidence that the runtime validation itself is broken.
Necessity and simplification
The new module does more than render documentation: it also owns result-format rules, global-option parsing, and reconstruction of safe validation messages. Shared runtime/reference rules are worthwhile, but keep those ownership boundaries visible. In particular, humanValidationMessage depends on Incur's human-output shape; when the dependency changes, it must fail closed to the existing redacted message rather than assume arbitrary output is schema-owned. The current fallback does that.
I would not add a general command-dependency DSL to fix the remaining hint. Use command-owned guidance for the few cross-option rules, and schemas for type/value constraints. The adapter should stay a compatibility layer for the pinned Incur omissions, not grow into a competing CLI framework. Its comments should remain tied to those upstream omissions so it can eventually be removed.
The previously reported equals-form global options, repeated-value constraints, and patch selector guidance are addressed at this head; I am not treating old comments as unresolved without checking the current code.
Verification
Ran cli-manifest.test.ts and cli.test.ts: 157 passed, 0 failed, covering scoped discovery, structured schema parity, global-option forms, and existing CLI behavior. Linux, Bun 1.3.14 / Node 22.13.1 with cached dependencies. No published-package smoke or native Windows run was performed.
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. 👍 Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: aa81998336
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| ...commands.map((command) => { | ||
| const restrictions = commandResultRestrictions(command.name ?? ""); | ||
| return [ | ||
| Skill.generate(cli.name, [command]).replace(/^#/gmu, "###"), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For the scoped scan-components --llms-full reference, this renders --component, --components-file, and --auto as independently optional and includes no command guidance, while the live refinement in cli.ts rejects every invocation that does not select exactly one of them. Because scoped output deliberately omits the README operating guide, an agent following this reference can construct commands that are guaranteed to fail; include the refinement through shared command guidance or another schema-derived source.
AGENTS.md reference: sdk/typescript/AGENTS.md:L16-L16
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| hint: | ||
| "--linear-team or CODEX_SECURITY_LINEAR_TEAM is required. " + | ||
| "--linear-assignee requires --linear-api-key or CODEX_SECURITY_LINEAR_API_KEY. " + | ||
| "If both --linear-project and --project are set, they must select the same project.", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These destination requirements are attached only to publish scan, so publish check --llms-full still presents --linear-team, --linear-assignee, and both project selectors without their dependencies. The publish check handler calls the same publicationDestination helper at cli.ts:2561, which rejects a missing team, an assignee without an API key, or conflicting project selectors; reuse this guidance for both publication commands so the scoped check reference does not advertise guaranteed-invalid combinations.
AGENTS.md reference: sdk/typescript/AGENTS.md:L16-L16
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
3 participants
Summary
Generate the Markdown form of
--llms-fullfrom the live schemas used by theinstalled CLI. The root reference includes the packaged operating guide, while
scoped references stay focused on the selected command or group. Structured
JSON manifests keep their existing shape.
Changes
deprecations, scalar constraints, and repeated-value constraints from live
schemas.
global options without interfering with shell completion.
documentation, and rebuild safe schema guidance without echoing rejected
values or formatter details.
Markdown reference.
runtime metadata, and cover the generated reference in package smoke checks.
mainand document the patch, verification, scan, andpublication option dependencies added there.
Testing
Exact head
c5ad985147f5eaba53682cd816fd60c5c9e6f50d:passed, zero failures.
12345full suite: 1,594 passed, 30 skipped, zero failures.public import, strict NodeNext consumer, CLI, bundled plugin, bundled Codex,
and nested worker.
actionable issues.
Risk and rollout
This intentionally changes the Markdown emitted by the existing
--llms-fullflag and makes related validation errors more specific. It doesnot add a command, flag, environment variable, dependency, persisted-state
migration, or plugin-version change. Explicit JSON discovery remains
structured, and scoped Markdown omits the full operating guide by design.
This PR does not publish or release a package. Exact-head cross-platform CI and
human approval remain merge requirements. Processing continues without waiting
for CI, and any exact-head failures will be handled in the return sweep.
Public disclosure review
The branch, title, description, commits, diff, tests, logs, and links added by
this update were reviewed. Existing automated review comments contain
requester-only Codex task reports and an access-gated settings link, so the
nonpublic-links attestation remains unchecked.