Based on a real day; names and selected personal details have been changed or omitted.

What's up with this ? https://research.example.invalid/?view=assistant&sessionId=example-session-0008 Says planned remote run but i see no plan. Also there's an extra inline run rendered block 

May 11 · 1:12 PM · User Source JSON

What's up with this ? https://research.example.invalid/?view=assistant&sessionId=example-session-0008

Says planned remote run but i see no plan. Also there's an extra inline run rendered block


May 11 · 1:12 PM · Assistant Source JSON

I’ll trace the assistant session rendering and inline run lookup path, then fix the duplicate/404 behavior where it’s coming from. After that I’ll run the repo’s validation and follow the repo instruction to commit, push, and deploy if there’s a deployment target.

May 11 · 1:12 PM · Assistant Source JSON

The initial search points at the dashboard/session code and the worker’s remote-run plan/start tools. I’m narrowing to the app and control-plane sources now, because the screenshot looks like a frontend rendering issue plus a stale inline-run reference.

May 11 · 1:13 PM · Assistant Source JSON

I found the likely cause: run inference treats any UUID in assistant text as a run id, so the session UUID in this URL-shaped content can produce an inline run block that fetches /runs/<session-id>/results and gets 404. I’m tightening that extraction and also making planned-run messages immune to inline run rendering so the approval block can show the plan instead of being skipped.

May 11 · 1:13 PM · User Source JSON

oh i could see the plan after i sent a followup message ("?") but not before.

May 11 · 1:13 PM · Assistant Source JSON

That follow-up detail fits the same failure mode: the plan entry was in the transcript, but the frontend was deriving a bogus run id from UUID text and using the run-block path instead of the plan approval path until the next refresh changed the entry order/state. I’m adjusting both the run-id inference and the rendering priority so planned-run metadata wins.

May 11 · 1:13 PM · Assistant Source JSON

I also hid the raw plan_remote_run tool-call transcript entry. The user-facing plan should be the approval block with the generated prompt, not a separate “Starting tool call” message that looks like a plan but contains only arguments.

May 11 · 1:14 PM · Assistant Source JSON

The diff is scoped to src/App.tsx: stricter run ID parsing, planned-run metadata protected from inline run blocks, and hidden raw plan tool-call entries. I’m running the standard validation now.

May 11 · 1:14 PM · Assistant Source JSON

TypeScript caught one leftover constant from the narrower parsing change. I’m cleaning that up and rerunning.

May 11 · 1:14 PM · Assistant Source JSON

pnpm build and pnpm test pass. I’m running the dashboard QA next; it rebuilds and drives the harness flows, so it should catch transcript rendering regressions better than the harness contract check alone.

May 11 · 1:14 PM · Assistant Source JSON

Dashboard QA passed. The repo has a Cloudflare deploy workflow, so I’m deploying the validated build next per the repo instructions, then I’ll commit and push the change.

May 11 · 1:15 PM · Assistant Source JSON

Deploy succeeded to the Cloudflare Worker routes, including research.example.invalid/*. I’m checking the final git state, then I’ll commit and push.

May 11 · 1:15 PM · Assistant Source JSON

Fixed and deployed.

What was happening: the dashboard was treating any UUID in assistant text as a run id, so the session id could be mistaken for a run id and render an inline run block that 404’d. I tightened run-id inference to explicit run contexts only, made planned remote-run entries skip inline run rendering, and hid the raw plan_remote_run tool-call transcript entry.

Validation passed: pnpm build pnpm test pnpm run qa:dashboard

Deployed to Cloudflare: Version example-id-0021

Committed and pushed: b120c04 Fix assistant remote run plan rendering

::git-stage{cwd="/Users/example/Documents/Projects/alpha-research"} ::git-commit{cwd="/Users/example/Documents/Projects/alpha-research"} ::git-push{cwd="/Users/example/Documents/Projects/alpha-research" branch="codex/run-lifecycle-reconciliation"}

May 11 · 1:16 PM · User Source JSON

There are two run boxes !!


May 11 · 1:16 PM · Assistant Source JSON

I see it. That’s a separate duplicate case from the 404: two transcript entries are both resolving to the same real run id, so the frontend renders the same RemoteRunBlock twice. I’m going to make the run-block de-dupe happen at render time as well, so duplicate assistant entries cannot produce duplicate live boxes.

May 11 · 1:17 PM · Assistant Source JSON

The existing de-dupe only applied to entries whose stored role was assistant. The duplicate boxes are likely a system tool-result entry plus the assistant summary entry; both become assistant-rendered messages in the UI, but only one was being considered for de-dupe. I’m fixing the de-dupe to cover every non-user message before it reaches the thread.

May 11 · 1:17 PM · Assistant Source JSON

Build and harness validation pass. I’m running the dashboard smoke again, then I’ll deploy this follow-up and push it.

May 11 · 1:18 PM · Assistant Source JSON

The duplicate run-block fix is deployed. I’m committing and pushing the follow-up now.

May 11 · 1:18 PM · Assistant Source JSON

Fixed the duplicate run boxes too.

Root cause: the de-dupe only applied to stored assistant entries, but the run can appear once as a system tool-result entry and once as an assistant summary. Both render as assistant UI messages, so both produced the same inline run block.

Follow-up deployed: Version example-id-0023

Validation passed: pnpm build pnpm test pnpm run qa:dashboard

Committed and pushed: 6620faf Deduplicate inline run blocks across session entries

::git-stage{cwd="/Users/example/Documents/Projects/alpha-research"} ::git-commit{cwd="/Users/example/Documents/Projects/alpha-research"} ::git-push{cwd="/Users/example/Documents/Projects/alpha-research" branch="codex/run-lifecycle-reconciliation"}