Build a reference implementation against Codex #89

Activity

1. rocklambros

   added

   help wantedAlready accepted work. Ask a lead to assign it to you.Already accepted work. Ask a lead to assign it to you.

   scope:in-focusFeeds the ninety-day committed outcome. Maintainers onlyFeeds the ninety-day committed outcome. Maintainers only

   status:acceptedIn the backlog. Maintainers onlyIn the backlog. Maintainers only

   priority:P1Maintainers onlyMaintainers only

   workstream:coding-agentsOwning workstream. Maintainers onlyOwning workstream. Maintainers only

   on Sep 10, 2026
2. rocklambros

   added this to ACS Project Trackeron Sep 10, 2026
3. rocklambros

   moved this to Accepted in ACS Project Trackeron Sep 10, 2026
4. Lrd0036 commented on Sep 16, 2026

   

   Lrd0036

   on Sep 16, 2026

   Collaborator

   More actions

   Would love to take this on...

   My understanding is that the Codex adapter should follow the adapters/ pattern from #22... a thin Python Codex-specific infrastructure? Rather than a separate host implementation under reference-implementations/agt. Also the related adapter work in #108

   Starting point would be the blocking PreToolUse path and get one complete slice

   Codex PreToolUse -> steps/toolCallRequest -> Guardian decision -> Codex allow/deny/modified input

   Would then add the emission/conformance tests and document Codex-specific coverage before expanding that... lifestyle coverage.

   Since #22 is still open–would you prefer that I base the work directly on #22 and submit #89 as a stacked PR, or develop against that locally and rebase onto integration once #22 lands?

   Thanks.
5. rocklambros

   added a sub-issue on Sep 21, 2026

   • [RefImpl] Codex adapter: tool calls through PreToolUse #170
6. rocklambros

   added this to the Host adapter coverage milestone on Oct 5, 2026
7. rocklambros

   assigned

   Lrd0036

   and unassigned

   Lrd0036

   on Nov 5, 2026
8. rocklambros commented on Nov 5, 2026

   

   rocklambros

   on Nov 5, 2026

   CollaboratorAuthor

   More actions

   @Lrd0036, your PR #162 covers the Codex tool-call slice through issue #170, and this issue stays open for the rest of the Codex work, which your PR describes as lifecycle and result coverage. Do you want to take that on too? If you do, I'll assign this issue to you. No pressure either way, and thanks for the Codex work so far!
9. Lrd0036 commented on Nov 5, 2026

   

   Lrd0036

   on Nov 5, 2026

   Last edited by Lrd0036

   Collaborator

   More actions

   Yes! Feel free to assign @rocklambros. I have been working on updating locally post #22 changes anyways.