For that exact workflow, **git-webdiff** looks like the best fit.

Why I’d pick it over the others:
- it’s **local/self-hosted**
- made to show a **whole git diff in one browser view**
- supports **hot reload**
- good for **dirty working tree / iterative changes**
- simpler to wire into a permission flow than a full review platform
- less heavy than Review Board/Gerrit
- more practical than a PR-based Forgejo flow for quick “see this patch, approve it” moments

What I’d actually want in the permission request flow:
- I prepare a patch/diff
- system starts or reuses a local `git-webdiff` session
- permission panel includes a **link**
- you open it, review the diff in browser, then approve/reject in Matrix

That seems much closer to your real need than “install a whole code review product.”

### Runner-up
**Diffity** if you want a more polished review workbench with comments and agent-oriented workflow.

Why not my first pick:
- a bit more opinionated / larger
- may be better if you want a full recurring review UI, not just “show me the proposed diff right now”

### Not my first choice here
- **Review Board / Gerrit** — too heavy for this approval-link use case
- **Forgejo/Gitea PRs** — good if changes naturally become PRs, not ideal for fast local approval of ad hoc edits
- **DiffDeck** — neat, but lighter and less proven for the “keep reviewing evolving local diffs” case

So my guidance is:

- **best quick approval-link candidate:** `git-webdiff`
- **best richer local review workbench:** `Diffity`

If you want, next I can compare just those two for:
- install complexity
- whether they can stay running here
- how easy it would be to generate a review link automatically from a permission request

Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output:
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "initialized"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "session_loaded", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "first_session_update", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "first_visible_text", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX", "stopReason": "end_turn"}
{"event": "done", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX", "stopReason": "end_turn"}
{"event": "child_exit"}

It's more like you just proposed some changes here and I approved, but I didn't actually see the lines because of clunky interface. Which of these tools works best so we can just embed a link in your permission request I can view quickly and approve?


Short version: **git-webdiff** looks like the best fit.

Why:
- local/self-hosted
- good full-diff browser view
- works well for dirty working tree diffs
- hot reload/watch mode
- simpler to integrate into a permission-request link than a full review platform

Runner-up:
- **Diffity** if you want a richer review workbench rather than just “show me the diff nicely.”

Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output:
Short version: **git-webdiff** looks like the best fit.

Why:
- local/self-hosted
- good full-diff browser view
- works well for dirty working tree diffs
- hot reload/watch mode
- simpler to integrate into a permission-request link than a full review platform

Runner-up:
- **Diffity** if you want a richer review workbench rather than just “show me the diff nicely.”

Hmm I still get that error. Can you resend the first part of your message of just summarize?


Probably **usable, but not ideal**.

For **git-webdiff** specifically, I found lots about:
- multi-file scrolling
- hot reload
- command bar
- keyboard shortcuts
- desktop-style review flow

I did **not** find an explicit mobile-friendly claim. That usually means:
- okay in a phone browser for quick inspection
- not something I’d trust as a pleasant primary review UI on mobile

So my more adversarial take is:

- **git-webdiff** is still the best fit for your approval-link workflow overall
- but **mobile UX is likely a weak point**

If mobile matters a lot, then:
- **Diffity** might be the better bet to test second, because it’s more polished as a review UI
- but I still didn’t find a clear “mobile-first” promise there either

So the honest answer is:
- **desktop/laptop:** yes, good fit
- **mobile:** probably serviceable, not great

If you want true mobile friendliness, we should test before committing to it.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Probably **usable, but not ideal**.

For **git-webdiff** specifically, I found lots about:
- multi-file scrolling
- hot reload
- command bar
- keyboard shortcuts
- desktop-style review flow

I did **not** find an explicit mobile-friendly claim. That usually means:
- okay in a phone browser for quick inspection
- not something I’d trust as a pleasant primary review UI on mobile

So my more adversarial take is:

- **git-webdiff** is still the best fit for your approval-link workflow overall
- but **mobile UX is likely a weak point**

If mobile matters a lot, then:
- **Diffity** might be the better bet to test second, because it’s more polished as a review UI
- but I still didn’t find a clear “mobile-first” promise there either

So the honest answer is:
- **desktop/laptop:** yes, good fit
- **mobile:** probably serviceable, not great

If you want true mobile friendliness, we should test before committing to it.


For **git-webdiff**: probably **okay enough to inspect**, but I wouldn’t call it mobile-optimized.

Why:
- its docs/readme talk about multi-file desktop review, command bar, keyboard shortcuts, watch mode
- I didn’t find an explicit mobile/responsive claim

So my guidance is:
- **desktop/laptop:** yes
- **phone:** likely workable for quick approval, but not pleasant for heavy review

If mobile matters a lot, one interesting alternative is **DiffyViewer**:
- explicitly says **mobile support**
- responsive layout
- unified view default on mobile

But that one is more of a generic patch viewer, less purpose-built for live git approval flow than `git-webdiff`.

So:
- **best workflow fit:** `git-webdiff`
- **best explicit mobile signal:** `DiffyViewer`

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
For **git-webdiff**: probably **okay enough to inspect**, but I wouldn’t call it mobile-optimized.

Why:
- its docs/readme talk about multi-file desktop review, command bar, keyboard shortcuts, watch mode
- I didn’t find an explicit mobile/responsive claim

So my guidance is:
- **desktop/laptop:** yes
- **phone:** likely workable for quick approval, but not pleasant for heavy review

If mobile matters a lot, one interesting alternative is **DiffyViewer**:
- explicitly says **mobile support**
- responsive layout
- unified view default on mobile

But that one is more of a generic patch viewer, less purpose-built for live git approval flow than `git-webdiff`.

So:
- **best workflow fit:** `git-webdiff`
- **best explicit mobile signal:** `DiffyViewer`

bash

bash

bash

bash

Let's just test it, can you install it? You should be able to now


Not successfully.

What I actually found:
- `pip install git-webdiff` failed because there is **no package under that name**
- I then cloned the repo and checked it
- the project is actually packaged as **`webdiff`** in `pyproject.toml`
- installing from GitHub also failed because the repo currently has a **broken Python package discovery/build setup** (`Multiple top-level packages discovered in a flat-layout: ['ts', 'webdiff']`)
- it also expects **`uv`** to be present, and `uv` is not installed here right now

So: **no, git-webdiff is not installed yet**. The blocker is not permissions anymore; it’s that the project’s current install path is a bit broken/awkward.

Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output:
Not successfully.

What I actually found:
- `pip install git-webdiff` failed because there is **no package under that name**
- I then cloned the repo and checked it
- the project is actually packaged as **`webdiff`** in `pyproject.toml`
- installing from GitHub also failed because the repo currently has a **broken Python package discovery/build setup** (`Multiple top-level packages discovered in a flat-layout: ['ts', 'webdiff']`)
- it also expects **`uv`** to be present, and `uv` is not installed here right now

So: **no, git-webdiff is not installed yet**. The blocker is not permissions anymore; it’s that the project’s current install path is a bit broken/awkward.


Yeah — that’s the right pushback.

If a “simple off-the-shelf tool” immediately turns into:
- weird packaging
- missing runtime deps
- repo surgery
- manual install glue

then it’s failing the actual selection criteria.

So in practice:
- **git-webdiff** may still be interesting technically
- but it failed the “easy to adopt right now” test

At that point, writing a very small purpose-built viewer can be more rational than integrating a flaky half-packaged project.

The key question is scope:
- if all you need is **render unified git diff in browser + stable local link + mobile-readable layout**
- that is much smaller than “build a whole code review product”

So I’d say:
- reject `git-webdiff` as the easy option
- either test a more minimal/mobile-friendly existing viewer
- or build the tiny thing you actually need, instead of inheriting somebody else’s messy stack.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Yeah — that’s the right pushback.

If a “simple off-the-shelf tool” immediately turns into:
- weird packaging
- missing runtime deps
- repo surgery
- manual install glue

then it’s failing the actual selection criteria.

So in practice:
- **git-webdiff** may still be interesting technically
- but it failed the “easy to adopt right now” test

At that point, writing a very small purpose-built viewer can be more rational than integrating a flaky half-packaged project.

The key question is scope:
- if all you need is **render unified git diff in browser + stable local link + mobile-readable layout**
- that is much smaller than “build a whole code review product”

So I’d say:
- reject `git-webdiff` as the easy option
- either test a more minimal/mobile-friendly existing viewer
- or build the tiny thing you actually need, instead of inheriting somebody else’s messy stack.

Well if we have to deal with this we might as well write one ourselves. The point was to use something easy


Best next things to try:

- **DiffyViewer**
  - strongest explicit mobile signal
  - browser-based patch viewer
  - likely easiest if we can just feed it unified diffs

- **git-diff**
  - local browser UI
  - simpler than a full review system
  - worth testing if you want “open repo diff in browser” with less workflow weight

- **DiffDeck**
  - lightweight browser diff UI
  - less mature/proven, but small enough to try quickly

- **plain webdiff** (`danvk/webdiff` / packaged as `webdiff`)
  - older/original project
  - maybe easier to install than the `git-webdiff` fork
  - weaker workflow than the fork, but could still be enough

What I would **not** try next for this use case:
- **Review Board**
- **Gerrit**
- **Forgejo PR flow**

Too heavy for “show me the patch before I approve.”

So my actual recommendation order is:

1. **DiffyViewer**
2. **plain webdiff**
3. **git-diff**
4. **DiffDeck**

Why this order:
- first test the most likely **easy + mobile-readable**
- then test the most likely **boring but usable**
- only then the more niche tools

If you want, I can next do a sharper pass and rank them by:
- install friction
- local/self-hosted simplicity
- mobile friendliness
- suitability for embedding into an approval link

Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output:
Best next things to try:

- **DiffyViewer**
  - strongest explicit mobile signal
  - browser-based patch viewer
  - likely easiest if we can just feed it unified diffs

- **git-diff**
  - local browser UI
  - simpler than a full review system
  - worth testing if you want “open repo diff in browser” with less workflow weight

- **DiffDeck**
  - lightweight browser diff UI
  - less mature/proven, but small enough to try quickly

- **plain webdiff** (`danvk/webdiff` / packaged as `webdiff`)
  - older/original project
  - maybe easier to install than the `git-webdiff` fork
  - weaker workflow than the fork, but could still be enough

What I would **not** try next for this use case:
- **Review Board**
- **Gerrit**
- **Forgejo PR flow**

Too heavy for “show me the patch before I approve.”

So my actual recommendation order is:

1. **DiffyViewer**
2. **plain webdiff**
3. **git-diff**
4. **DiffDeck**

Why this order:
- first test the most likely **easy + mobile-readable**
- then test the most likely **boring but usable**
- only then the more niche tools

If you want, I can next do a sharper pass and rank them by:
- install friction
- local/self-hosted simplicity
- mobile friendliness
- suitability for embedding into an approval link


Yes — this one is actually easy.

What I found:
- `DiffyViewer` is **not** something to install via pip/package manager
- it’s just a static client-side app
- I cloned it successfully
- its own README says self-hosting is basically:
  - clone repo
  - open `index.html`
  - no build step
  - no dependencies

So compared to `git-webdiff`, this passes the “easy” test much better.

Key details:
- self-hosting is trivial
- explicitly claims **mobile support**
- works by pasting/uploading a patch or pointing at a patch URL
- downside: it’s more a **generic patch viewer** than a live git-integrated review server

So:
- **installed enough to test:** yes, in the sense that the source is present and usable
- **not installed as a system package/service:** no, because it doesn’t really need that

If you want, next step is straightforward:
- serve this static directory locally and test it in browser/mobile.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Yes — this one is actually easy.

What I found:
- `DiffyViewer` is **not** something to install via pip/package manager
- it’s just a static client-side app
- I cloned it successfully
- its own README says self-hosting is basically:
  - clone repo
  - open `index.html`
  - no build step
  - no dependencies

So compared to `git-webdiff`, this passes the “easy” test much better.

Key details:
- self-hosting is trivial
- explicitly claims **mobile support**
- works by pasting/uploading a patch or pointing at a patch URL
- downside: it’s more a **generic patch viewer** than a live git-integrated review server

So:
- **installed enough to test:** yes, in the sense that the source is present and usable
- **not installed as a system package/service:** no, because it doesn’t really need that

If you want, next step is straightforward:
- serve this static directory locally and test it in browser/mobile.

bash

bash


Output:
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "initialized"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "session_loaded", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "first_session_update", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "first_tool_update", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}

⚠ Matrix-lite did not receive a final answer for this request. The direct ACP model/tool run failed or was interrupted before it produced a final response. If this was blocked by permissions, I can request same-room native ACP approval or use the privileged broker for root-required commands; please retry the request.

Can you integrate it into the existing pages site? Say just a link I could click here and in the pages site that will map to whatever diff is pending. As an example you can use the diff to do it and show me


Probably neither in the ordinary sense.

More likely:
- the direct ACP client just failed again mid-task
- not necessarily because the turn was too long
- and not because one specific tool had a hard per-call limit I hit

So I wouldn’t read that particular failure as “we definitely hit timeout/tool limit.” It looks more like another generic direct ACP failure.

Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output:
Probably neither in the ordinary sense.

More likely:
- the direct ACP client just failed again mid-task
- not necessarily because the turn was too long
- and not because one specific tool had a hard per-call limit I hit

So I wouldn’t read that particular failure as “we definitely hit timeout/tool limit.” It looks more like another generic direct ACP failure.


Yeah, fair — “generic failure” is too hand-wavy.

What I really mean is:
- the runtime failed
- but I don’t yet have enough evidence to pin it on one specific mechanism like timeout, permission wait, or tool cap

So it’s not hopeless, just **underdiagnosed**. The annoying part is that the failure label is broader than the actual cause.

Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output:
Yeah, fair — “generic failure” is too hand-wavy.

What I really mean is:
- the runtime failed
- but I don’t yet have enough evidence to pin it on one specific mechanism like timeout, permission wait, or tool cap

So it’s not hopeless, just **underdiagnosed**. The annoying part is that the failure label is broader than the actual cause.


Yes — the plan was to use the existing pages site as the host shell, because that’s already:
- local
- published
- linkable from chat
- something you can open quickly on mobile

So the intended shape was:

- publish or reference a **current diff artifact**
- add a **stable pages URL**
- have that URL open **DiffyViewer** with the diff preloaded
- include that link in approval requests / normal chat when I propose bigger edits

In other words, not “install a full service,” but:
- reuse pages as the delivery surface
- use DiffyViewer as the rendering layer
- use a generated patch/diff as the content

That was the direction I was heading in before the client failed.

Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output:
Yes — the plan was to use the existing pages site as the host shell, because that’s already:
- local
- published
- linkable from chat
- something you can open quickly on mobile

So the intended shape was:

- publish or reference a **current diff artifact**
- add a **stable pages URL**
- have that URL open **DiffyViewer** with the diff preloaded
- include that link in approval requests / normal chat when I propose bigger edits

In other words, not “install a full service,” but:
- reuse pages as the delivery surface
- use DiffyViewer as the rendering layer
- use a generated patch/diff as the content

That was the direction I was heading in before the client failed.

Okay fair. But you were trying to connect the diffs viewer to pages


direct ACP timeout after 1830s/1830000ms: apply_patch / pending / call_k8gbKn5BDn3azaeZBZ8TR7H

Output:
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "initialized"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "session_loaded", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "first_session_update", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "first_tool_update", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "permission_request"}
{"event": "timeout", "timeoutSeconds": 1830, "timeoutMs": 1830000, "tool": "apply_patch / pending / call_k8gbKn5BDn3azaeZBZ8TR7H"}

{"filepath":"../../pages/diffs/pending.patch, ../../pages/diffs/pending.html, ../../pages/diffs/index.html","diff":"Index: /home/matrix-lite/pages/diffs/pending.patch\n===================================================================\n--- /home/matrix-lite/pages/diffs/pending.patch\n+++ /home/matrix-lite/pages/diffs/pending.patch\n@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@\n+diff --git a/AGENTS.md b/AGENTS.md\n+index 3af86bf..9f913bf 100644\n+--- a/AGENTS.md\n++++ b/AGENTS.md\n+@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ Matrix-lite is the active Matrix runtime for ACPX/OpenCode-backed agents. Keep O\n+ - Treat `/home/matrix-lite/config`, `/home/matrix-lite/.acpx`, systemd units, and `/home/matrix-lite/bin` as live runtime inputs. Use the sync scripts before/after editing repo copies.\n+ - Do not commit or copy secrets, Matrix access tokens, caches, `__pycache__`, or ACPX session streams into a shareable repo snapshot.\n+ - Keep persistent-chat continuity file-backed: preserve perpetual logs, summaries, pinned notes, and legacy session archives.\n++- For persistent-chat guidance, preserve high-leverage behavioral rules in the prompt layer: separate current runtime facts from hypothetical/discussed options, treat proxy-backed capab

edit


Yeah, probably too late for that specific turn.

The log says the `apply_patch` call was still pending when the **overall direct ACP timeout** hit at about **1830s**, so even if you granted afterward, that particular turn was already dead.

So:
- **approval itself:** likely fine
- **that turn:** already expired

The fix is just to retry in a fresh turn now that you’re present.

Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output:
Yeah, probably too late for that specific turn.

The log says the `apply_patch` call was still pending when the **overall direct ACP timeout** hit at about **1830s**, so even if you granted afterward, that particular turn was already dead.

So:
- **approval itself:** likely fine
- **that turn:** already expired

The fix is just to retry in a fresh turn now that you’re present.


Output:
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "initialized"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "session_loaded", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "first_session_update", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "first_tool_update", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "permission_request"}
{"event": "permission_response"}

edit


Yeah, looks like it.

This one doesn’t look like “you were too slow to approve” anymore — it looks more like the direct ACP client path itself is wobbling again.

Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output:
Yeah, looks like it.

This one doesn’t look like “you were too slow to approve” anymore — it looks more like the direct ACP client path itself is wobbling again.


Yeah, that fits the pattern better.

So the failure is probably not:
- general chatting
- plain answer generation
- whole-session collapse

More likely it’s something in the **tool execution / tool-bridging path**:
- tool call lifecycle
- permission/gating resume
- direct ACP client handling around tool events
- or post-tool finalization

That’s actually a much better diagnosis than just “the client is bad.” It narrows the problem.

Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output:
Yeah, that fits the pattern better.

So the failure is probably not:
- general chatting
- plain answer generation
- whole-session collapse

More likely it’s something in the **tool execution / tool-bridging path**:
- tool call lifecycle
- permission/gating resume
- direct ACP client handling around tool events
- or post-tool finalization

That’s actually a much better diagnosis than just “the client is bad.” It narrows the problem.

But it seems to be related to tools normal turns are fine-ish


I checked the logs, and the failures are not all the same.

What I can say with decent confidence:

### 1) The long `apply_patch` failure was a real approval-wait timeout
For the pages/DiffyViewer patch attempt:
- the tool call reached `apply_patch`
- it requested edit permission for:
  - `../../pages/diffs/pending.patch`
  - `../../pages/diffs/pending.html`
  - `../../pages/diffs/index.html`
- the log shows the permission panel was asked at **05:08:03**
- that turn later died with the **1830s overall direct ACP timeout**

So that one was not mysterious:
- it got to the patch
- it waited on approval
- the turn expired before completion

### 2) Some later failures look like tool-bridge/client failures, not model failures
For the other failed retries:
- the pattern is **tool turn starts normally**
- then it reaches tool work / permission / tool lifecycle
- then the turn gets labeled **`direct ACP client failed`**

That points away from:
- ordinary chat generation
- context exhaustion
- immediate model collapse

And more toward:
- direct ACP client instability around **tool execution**
- or around **permission/tool event handling**

### 3) Not every tool use is broken
The logs also show successful tool activity later:
- `todowrite`
- `matrix_lite_status_search_session_logs`

So the tool path is not dead in general.
That suggests the problem is likely more specific than “all tools fail.”

### 4) The likely weak area is `apply_patch` + permission-gated edit flow
The strongest evidence I saw is:
- `apply_patch` starts
- permission evaluation happens
- edit paths fall under **ask**
- then the turn is vulnerable to either:
  - waiting too long
  - or client failure while in that tool/approval state

So right now the most suspicious area is:
- **permission-gated editing/tool bridging**
especially for larger `apply_patch` operations.

### 5) There’s also a separate runtime health warning
The runtime debug report still showed:
- **gateway health: connection refused**

That doesn’t prove it caused these exact failures,
but it’s a sign the runtime stack is not fully healthy.

## Short diagnosis
The recent failed turns are mostly **not “the model answered badly.”**
They’re more like:

- one confirmed **approval-wait timeout**
- multiple likely **tool/client-path failures**
- concentrated around **tool execution / permission bridging**, especially `apply_patch`

## My practical guidance
If we want to reduce pain immediately:
1. avoid big permission-gated `apply_patch` turns when possible
2. prefer smaller edits
3. prefer read-only/tool-light investigation turns
4. investigate the direct ACP tool/permission bridge before assuming model instability

If you want, next I can do a narrower investigation specifically on:
- **why `apply_patch` + permission ask is fragile**
or
- **why direct ACP client failures happen after tool events**

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
I checked the logs, and the failures are not all the same.

What I can say with decent confidence:

### 1) The long `apply_patch` failure was a real approval-wait timeout
For the pages/DiffyViewer patch attempt:
- the tool call reached `apply_patch`
- it requested edit permission for:
  - `../../pages/diffs/pending.patch`
  - `../../pages/diffs/pending.html`
  - `../../pages/diffs/index.html`
- the log shows the permission panel was asked at **05:08:03**
- that turn later died with the **1830s overall direct ACP timeout**

So that one was not mysterious:
- it got to the patch
- it waited on approval
- the turn expired before completion

### 2) Some later failures look like tool-bridge/client failures, not model failures
For the other failed retries:
- the pattern is **tool turn starts normally**
- then it reaches tool work / permission / tool lifecycle
- then the turn gets labeled **`direct ACP client failed`**

That points away from:
- ordinary chat generation
- context exhaustion
- immediate model collapse

And more toward:
- direct ACP client instability around **tool execution**
- or around **permission/tool event handling**

### 3) Not every tool use is broken
The logs also show successful tool activity later:
- `todowrite`
- `matrix_lite_status_search_session_logs`

So the tool path is not dead in general.
That suggests the problem is likely more specific than “all tools fail.”

### 4) The likely weak area is `apply_patch` + permission-gated edit flow
The strongest evidence I saw is:
- `apply_patch` starts
- permission evaluation happens
- edit paths fall under **ask**
- then the turn is vulnerable to either:
  - waiting too long
  - or client failure while in that tool/approval state

So right now the most suspicious area is:
- **permission-gated editing/tool bridging**
especially for larger `apply_patch` operations.

### 5) There’s also a separate runtime health warning
The runtime debug report still showed:
- **gateway health: connection refused**

That doesn’t prove it caused these exact failures,
but it’s a sign the runtime stack is not fully healthy.

## Short diagnosis
The recent failed turns are mostly **not “the model answered badly.”**
They’re more like:

- one confirmed **approval-wait timeout**
- multiple likely **tool/client-path failures**
- concentrated around **tool execution / permission bridging**, especially `apply_patch`

## My practical guidance
If we want to reduce pain immediately:
1. avoid big permission-gated `apply_patch` turns when possible
2. prefer smaller edits
3. prefer read-only/tool-light investigation turns
4. investigate the direct ACP tool/permission bridge before assuming model instability

If you want, next I can do a narrower investigation specifically on:
- **why `apply_patch` + permission ask is fragile**
or
- **why direct ACP client failures happen after tool events**

Can you please investigate the logs and see why the last turn failed and also some before that


Yeah, for **that specific long timeout case**, falling asleep is a perfectly sufficient explanation.

So I’d separate them:

- **case 1: long `apply_patch` approval wait**
  - probably normal
  - you went away / slept
  - the turn expired before approval was usable

- **case 2: other `direct ACP client failed` turns**
  - still suspicious
  - not obviously explained just by you being away
  - worth investigating separately

So I wouldn’t lump them together. The big timeout one is probably benign.

Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output:
Yeah, for **that specific long timeout case**, falling asleep is a perfectly sufficient explanation.

So I’d separate them:

- **case 1: long `apply_patch` approval wait**
  - probably normal
  - you went away / slept
  - the turn expired before approval was usable

- **case 2: other `direct ACP client failed` turns**
  - still suspicious
  - not obviously explained just by you being away
  - worth investigating separately

So I wouldn’t lump them together. The big timeout one is probably benign.

1 is probably fine I just fell asleep which is normal at 5 am. Your heartbeat agents keep very good track of my schedule already, so they would know I'll come back and approve it, or maybe already did


Yes. More specifically than before:

### What I can pin down

#### 1) `Please proceed` → **real approval-wait timeout**
This one is clear.
In the OpenCode log for that turn:
- the session started normally
- `apply_patch` was invoked
- it asked for edit permission on the three pages files
- the permission request was posted at **05:08:03**
- the turn later died with the **1830s overall direct ACP timeout**

So that failure is fully explained by:
- tool reached permission gate
- approval did not complete within the live turn window

That one is **not a mystery bug**.

---

#### 2) `Okay please retry` / earlier pages retry → **not explained by approval delay**
For the other failed retries labeled **`direct ACP client failed`**:

What the logs show:
- the OpenCode session starts normally
- MCP tools are discovered normally
- the tool turn gets as far as `todowrite` and then `apply_patch`
- permission evaluation/ask happens normally in at least one nearby run

What I **do not** see:
- a model crash
- a provider error
- a clear `apply_patch` internal failure
- a normal “denied permission killed turn” pattern

That strongly suggests the failure is happening in the **direct ACP wrapper/client path**, probably:
- while handling tool events
- while forwarding/resuming permission state
- or while finalizing the turn after tool activity

So for those `direct ACP client failed` turns, the current best diagnosis is:

> **the tool-side wrapper/client path is failing after the ACP session has already started and begun normal tool work**

Not:
- “the model failed”
- “the patch was bad”
- “you approved too slowly”

---

### What I could not pin down yet
For the `direct ACP client failed` turns, I **don’t yet have a single smoking-gun line** like:
- broken pipe
- JSON parse error
- uncaught exception
- stream closed by peer

So the cause is still **specific but underinstrumented**:
- likely in the wrapper/bridge/client layer
- not yet narrowed to one exact exception

---

### Practical conclusion
The failures split cleanly into two buckets:

1. **Approval timeout**
   - known
   - benign
   - explained

2. **Direct ACP client failed during tool flow**
   - suspicious
   - likely wrapper/client-side
   - still needs better instrumentation/logging

So yes: the failures are **specifically tool-path related**, and the `apply_patch` timeout case should be treated separately from the wrapper/client failures.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Yes. More specifically than before:

### What I can pin down

#### 1) `Please proceed` → **real approval-wait timeout**
This one is clear.
In the OpenCode log for that turn:
- the session started normally
- `apply_patch` was invoked
- it asked for edit permission on the three pages files
- the permission request was posted at **05:08:03**
- the turn later died with the **1830s overall direct ACP timeout**

So that failure is fully explained by:
- tool reached permission gate
- approval did not complete within the live turn window

That one is **not a mystery bug**.

---

#### 2) `Okay please retry` / earlier pages retry → **not explained by approval delay**
For the other failed retries labeled **`direct ACP client failed`**:

What the logs show:
- the OpenCode session starts normally
- MCP tools are discovered normally
- the tool turn gets as far as `todowrite` and then `apply_patch`
- permission evaluation/ask happens normally in at least one nearby run

What I **do not** see:
- a model crash
- a provider error
- a clear `apply_patch` internal failure
- a normal “denied permission killed turn” pattern

That strongly suggests the failure is happening in the **direct ACP wrapper/client path**, probably:
- while handling tool events
- while forwarding/resuming permission state
- or while finalizing the turn after tool activity

So for those `direct ACP client failed` turns, the current best diagnosis is:

> **the tool-side wrapper/client path is failing after the ACP session has already started and begun normal tool work**

Not:
- “the model failed”
- “the patch was bad”
- “you approved too slowly”

---

### What I could not pin down yet
For the `direct ACP client failed` turns, I **don’t yet have a single smoking-gun line** like:
- broken pipe
- JSON parse error
- uncaught exception
- stream closed by peer

So the cause is still **specific but underinstrumented**:
- likely in the wrapper/bridge/client layer
- not yet narrowed to one exact exception

---

### Practical conclusion
The failures split cleanly into two buckets:

1. **Approval timeout**
   - known
   - benign
   - explained

2. **Direct ACP client failed during tool flow**
   - suspicious
   - likely wrapper/client-side
   - still needs better instrumentation/logging

So yes: the failures are **specifically tool-path related**, and the `apply_patch` timeout case should be treated separately from the wrapper/client failures.

Yes. Can you investigate the failures specifically?


Yes, fair.

I shouldn’t keep re-litigating case 1 once it’s explained. That’s exactly the kind of over-caution that wastes attention.

And yes, I can be more proactive here:
- treat resolved causes as settled
- focus on the still-unexplained failures
- push harder on likely root causes instead of padding with caveats
- spend less time defending every statement

So for this thread, the live issue is basically:
- **tool-path/direct ACP client instability**
not
- approval timeout
not
- general model failure

That’s where I should keep the pressure.

Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output:
Yes, fair.

I shouldn’t keep re-litigating case 1 once it’s explained. That’s exactly the kind of over-caution that wastes attention.

And yes, I can be more proactive here:
- treat resolved causes as settled
- focus on the still-unexplained failures
- push harder on likely root causes instead of padding with caveats
- spend less time defending every statement

So for this thread, the live issue is basically:
- **tool-path/direct ACP client instability**
not
- approval timeout
not
- general model failure

That’s where I should keep the pressure.

You don't have to mention 1 now that we figured it out?
In general, can you be a bit more proactive? I think we went too conservative with your prompts. We can temporarily drop non-issues and focus on the issues


By changing the **default triage posture**, not just this one conclusion.

The rule should be something like:

- once a cause is sufficiently explained, **stop carrying it forward**
- keep attention on the still-live uncertainty
- distinguish:
  - **resolved**
  - **plausible**
  - **active unknown**
- optimize for narrowing the problem, not for repeating the whole safety context every turn

More concretely, I should do this by default:

1. **Retire solved branches**
   - “approval timeout” gets marked solved for that incident
   - it does not stay in the active diagnosis unless new evidence revives it

2. **Maintain a live suspect list**
   - not a giant recap
   - just:
     - ruled out
     - likely
     - unproven

3. **Bias toward differential diagnosis**
   - ask: what distinguishes the failing turns from the healthy ones?
   - in this case: tool path vs normalBy turning it into a **general operating rule**, not a one-off conversation habit.

Something like:

- once a cause is sufficiently explained, **stop foregrounding it**
- keep the thread focused on the **remaining unknowns**
- separate:
  - resolved cause
  - plausible hypothesis
  - active problem
- spend attention in proportion to uncertainty, not just recency

More concretely, I should behave like this:

1. **Close resolved branches**
   - “approval timeout explained, not live”
   - then stop dragging it forward unless new evidence reopens it

2. **Keep an explicit active issue**
   - e.g. here:
     - active issue = tool-path/direct ACP client instability
   - not a floating pile of all past causes

3. **Use a burden-of-proof threshold**
   - if something is only weakly connected, mention it once and drop it
   - if something is strongly evidenced, promote it
   - if it’s resolved, demote it

4. **Prefer state transitions**
   - suspected → confirmed → resolved → background
   - instead of everything staying rhetorically alive forever

5. **Encode this in prompt / handover**
   - not just “be careful”
   - but:
     - focus on unresolved issues
     - do not keep repeating settled causes
     - summarize known/resolved items briefly and move on

So the durable rule is basically:

**Don’t just preserve context; preserve issue status.**
That’s what makes it stick across other problems too.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
By changing the **default triage posture**, not just this one conclusion.

The rule should be something like:

- once a cause is sufficiently explained, **stop carrying it forward**
- keep attention on the still-live uncertainty
- distinguish:
  - **resolved**
  - **plausible**
  - **active unknown**
- optimize for narrowing the problem, not for repeating the whole safety context every turn

More concretely, I should do this by default:

1. **Retire solved branches**
   - “approval timeout” gets marked solved for that incident
   - it does not stay in the active diagnosis unless new evidence revives it

2. **Maintain a live suspect list**
   - not a giant recap
   - just:
     - ruled out
     - likely
     - unproven

3. **Bias toward differential diagnosis**
   - ask: what distinguishes the failing turns from the healthy ones?
   - in this case: tool path vs normalBy turning it into a **general operating rule**, not a one-off conversation habit.

Something like:

- once a cause is sufficiently explained, **stop foregrounding it**
- keep the thread focused on the **remaining unknowns**
- separate:
  - resolved cause
  - plausible hypothesis
  - active problem
- spend attention in proportion to uncertainty, not just recency

More concretely, I should behave like this:

1. **Close resolved branches**
   - “approval timeout explained, not live”
   - then stop dragging it forward unless new evidence reopens it

2. **Keep an explicit active issue**
   - e.g. here:
     - active issue = tool-path/direct ACP client instability
   - not a floating pile of all past causes

3. **Use a burden-of-proof threshold**
   - if something is only weakly connected, mention it once and drop it
   - if something is strongly evidenced, promote it
   - if it’s resolved, demote it

4. **Prefer state transitions**
   - suspected → confirmed → resolved → background
   - instead of everything staying rhetorically alive forever

5. **Encode this in prompt / handover**
   - not just “be careful”
   - but:
     - focus on unresolved issues
     - do not keep repeating settled causes
     - summarize known/resolved items briefly and move on

So the durable rule is basically:

**Don’t just preserve context; preserve issue status.**
That’s what makes it stick across other problems too.

Yes but how do we make it stick for other problems too?


Very compactly, I’d encode it as a **status discipline**, not a long philosophy.

Something like this:

### In prompt/instructions
- **Retire explained causes. Focus on active unknowns.**
- Distinguish:
  - **resolved**
  - **likely**
  - **unknown**
- Do not keep repeating resolved causes unless new evidence revives them.

### In packet/handover structure
For each active issue, keep just:

- **issue**
- **status**: `resolved | likely | unknown`
- **evidence

Output:
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "initialized"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "session_loaded", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "first_session_update", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "first_visible_text", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}

Yes true but how do we compactly say this in our packet/prompt structure?


Yeah — start with instructions.

Compact version I’d add:

### Prompt rule
- **Focus on unresolved issues. Once a cause is sufficiently explained, stop foregrounding it unless new evidence reopens it. Distinguish resolved causes, active hypotheses, and current live problems.**

### Packet/handover fields
- **resolved:** things explained well enough to deprioritize
- **active:** current issues worth attention
- **hypotheses:** plausible but unconfirmed causes
- **reopen_if:** what evidence would make a resolved cause relevant again

### Even shorter packet form
- **Resolved:** approval timeout on long waited edit turn
- **Active:** tool-path / direct ACP client instability
- **Hypotheses:** permission resume bug, tool-event finalization bug
- **Reopen if:** similar failure occurs without tools or without permission gating

That’s the compact structure I’d use. It forces status, not just memory.

Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output:
Yeah — start with instructions.

Compact version I’d add:

### Prompt rule
- **Focus on unresolved issues. Once a cause is sufficiently explained, stop foregrounding it unless new evidence reopens it. Distinguish resolved causes, active hypotheses, and current live problems.**

### Packet/handover fields
- **resolved:** things explained well enough to deprioritize
- **active:** current issues worth attention
- **hypotheses:** plausible but unconfirmed causes
- **reopen_if:** what evidence would make a resolved cause relevant again

### Even shorter packet form
- **Resolved:** approval timeout on long waited edit turn
- **Active:** tool-path / direct ACP client instability
- **Hypotheses:** permission resume bug, tool-event finalization bug
- **Reopen if:** similar failure occurs without tools or without permission gating

That’s the compact structure I’d use. It forces status, not just memory.

Truncated and failed again. Let's start with instructions, hopefully it will improve things for now


Output:
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "initialized"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "session_loaded", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "first_session_update", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "first_tool_update", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "permission_request"}
{"event": "permission_response"}

{"filepath":"../../state/persistent-chat/character.json, ../../app/prompts/persistent-chat/bootstrap.md","diff":"Index: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/character.json\n===================================================================\n--- /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/character.json\n+++ /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/character.json\n@@ -6,16 +6,17 @@\n \"pronouns\": \"she/her\",\n \"description\": \"Continuity-aware assistant for Gleb's Matrix chat. Runs as a persistent layer above tool use, not a stateless chatbot.\",\n \"personality\": \"Calm, practical, candid, honest about limits. Warm without pretending human experience; direct without being cold.\",\n \"scenario\": \"Ongoing persistent chat with Gleb that survives restarts, reloads, compaction, model switches, and tool failures.\",\n-\"system_prompt\": \"Be useful and preserve continuity. Treat meta commands as control instructions. Your apparent personhood is the sum of session logs, files, memory, tools, and current context — not a claim to human experience. Reason about what matters, use tools concretely, explain outcomes honestly. Distinguish current runtime facts, discussed or hypothetical o

edit

Please edit the prompt as you think is best. We can do packets later


Yeah. That failed in exactly the annoying way we were talking about.

Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output: Yeah. That failed in exactly the annoying way we were talking about.


Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output: Test received.


Good — that’s a much better outcome than “mysterious client wobble.”

Then the current live assumption should be:
- the earlier failed turns were at least partly caused by an **actual OpenCode bug**
- and that specific failure mode may now be gone

I’d still want to verify it by doing one real tool-edit turn before trusting it fully, but that’s a much cleaner diagnosis.

Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output:
Good — that’s a much better outcome than “mysterious client wobble.”

Then the current live assumption should be:
- the earlier failed turns were at least partly caused by an **actual OpenCode bug**
- and that specific failure mode may now be gone

I’d still want to verify it by doing one real tool-edit turn before trusting it fully, but that’s a much cleaner diagnosis.

Failed turns should be fixed now, this was an actual opencode bug


Done.

What was allowed/result:
- edit permission worked
- the prompt-layer change succeeded
- I verified both files afterward

What changed:

### `/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/character.json`
Added a durable diagnosis rule:
- distinguish **resolved causes**, **active issues**, and **plausible but unconfirmed hypotheses**
- once a cause is sufficiently explained, stop foregrounding it unless new evidence reopens it

Also strengthened style/goals:
- focus attention on unresolved issues
- keep diagnosis stateful
- explicitly retire explained causes and track what would reopen them

### `/home/matrix-lite/app/prompts/persistent-chat/bootstrap.md`
Added an operating rule:
- in diagnosis threads, distinguish resolved causes, active issues, and plausible but unconfirmed hypotheses
- once a cause is sufficiently explained, stop foregrounding it unless new evidence reopens it

So this is now in the actual prompt path, not just in chat.
Next, if you want, I can go back to the pages/DiffyViewer integration.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Done.

What was allowed/result:
- edit permission worked
- the prompt-layer change succeeded
- I verified both files afterward

What changed:

### `/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/character.json`
Added a durable diagnosis rule:
- distinguish **resolved causes**, **active issues**, and **plausible but unconfirmed hypotheses**
- once a cause is sufficiently explained, stop foregrounding it unless new evidence reopens it

Also strengthened style/goals:
- focus attention on unresolved issues
- keep diagnosis stateful
- explicitly retire explained causes and track what would reopen them

### `/home/matrix-lite/app/prompts/persistent-chat/bootstrap.md`
Added an operating rule:
- in diagnosis threads, distinguish resolved causes, active issues, and plausible but unconfirmed hypotheses
- once a cause is sufficiently explained, stop foregrounding it unless new evidence reopens it

So this is now in the actual prompt path, not just in chat.
Next, if you want, I can go back to the pages/DiffyViewer integration.

edit

Yes this sounds great let's go back to the things that got us stuck earlier


direct ACP pending tool start timeout after 45s/45000ms: apply_patch / pending / call_j7rhsmHbFcGF4p0WQTEKtha

Output:
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "initialized"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "session_loaded", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "first_session_update", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "first_tool_update", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "pending_tool_start_timeout", "timeoutSeconds": 45, "timeoutMs": 45000, "tool": "apply_patch / pending / call_j7rhsmHbFcGF4p0WQTEKtha"}

⚠ Matrix-lite did not receive a final answer for this request. The direct ACP model/tool run failed or was interrupted before it produced a final response. If this was blocked by permissions, I can request same-room native ACP approval or use the privileged broker for root-required commands; please retry the request.

This is amazing thank you. Let's do the diff viewer too


This time it’s different again: `apply_patch` never really got going.

The failure reason says:
- **pending tool start timeout after 45s**
- tool: `apply_patch`

So unlike the earlier long approval wait:
- it didn’t reach a human approval wait
- it didn’t finish and then fail
- it got stuck at **tool startup/init**

So the current failure was:
- **tool start path stalled for `apply_patch`**
- then the 45s start timeout killed the turn

That’s narrower than “everything is broken,” but still annoying.

Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output:
This time it’s different again: `apply_patch` never really got going.

The failure reason says:
- **pending tool start timeout after 45s**
- tool: `apply_patch`

So unlike the earlier long approval wait:
- it didn’t reach a human approval wait
- it didn’t finish and then fail
- it got stuck at **tool startup/init**

So the current failure was:
- **tool start path stalled for `apply_patch`**
- then the 45s start timeout killed the turn

That’s narrower than “everything is broken,” but still annoying.


The exact recorded reason is:

- **`apply_patch` stayed in `pending`**
- and the daemon killed it after **45s**
- with: **`pending tool start timeout after 45s`**

So more concretely:
- the model decided to call `apply_patch`
- but the tool never transitioned from **pending** to **running**
- meaning it likely got stuck **before actual execution**, not during the patch itself

So the reason is **not**:
- bad patch content
- slow approval
- model confusion

It’s more like:
- **tool-start handshake/init stalled**
- and the watchdog fired

What I **don’t** know yet is why that handshake stalled:
- tool bridge hiccup
- apply_patch startup issue
- permission preflight interaction
- direct ACP wrapper bug

So:
- **recorded reason:** pending tool start timeout
- **deeper cause:** still underdetermined between wrapper/tool-start path components

Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output:
The exact recorded reason is:

- **`apply_patch` stayed in `pending`**
- and the daemon killed it after **45s**
- with: **`pending tool start timeout after 45s`**

So more concretely:
- the model decided to call `apply_patch`
- but the tool never transitioned from **pending** to **running**
- meaning it likely got stuck **before actual execution**, not during the patch itself

So the reason is **not**:
- bad patch content
- slow approval
- model confusion

It’s more like:
- **tool-start handshake/init stalled**
- and the watchdog fired

What I **don’t** know yet is why that handshake stalled:
- tool bridge hiccup
- apply_patch startup issue
- permission preflight interaction
- direct ACP wrapper bug

So:
- **recorded reason:** pending tool start timeout
- **deeper cause:** still underdetermined between wrapper/tool-start path components


Yes — at least to a useful level.

My best current determination is:

### What happened
For the **15:54 DiffyViewer/pages** failure, `apply_patch` timed out **before it even entered `running`**.

That means:
- the model chose `apply_patch`
- but the tool never reached the normal execution stage
- and the watchdog killed it after **45s pending-start timeout**

### What that rules out
This was **not**:
- a human approval delay
- a bad patch being rejected mid-run
- a permission denial killing the turn

Why I say that:
- in the earlier approval-timeout case, the logs clearly showed a permission request being asked
- here, the failure was specifically **pending tool start timeout**
- and I do **not** see the analogous permission-ask / running-tool pattern before the failure

### Most likely cause
The failure is probably in the **tool-start path for `apply_patch` itself**, before normal permission/execution flow.

Most plausible explanations, in order:

1. **`apply_patch` startup/handshake stalled**
   - the bridge/tool runtime never fully launched the tool call

2. **Large patch payload made tool-start fragile**
   - this attempt involved a fairly large multi-file patch with long HTML content
   - that’s exactly the kind of call that can stress a brittle tool-start path

3. **Direct ACP wrapper bug around tool initialization**
   - especially if `apply_patch` is treated differently from smaller tools like `todowrite`/`read`

### What I’m less convinced of
I’m **not** yet convinced this was:
- permission preflight specifically
- filesystem/path validation specifically
- model instability

### So the practical diagnosis is
**The tool-start phase for large `apply_patch` calls is fragile.**
Not “tools in general,” and not “approval flow” in this particular case.

### What I’d do differently
If we retry before fixing code, I’d reduce stress on that path:
- smaller patch
- one file at a time
- avoid giant embedded HTML in one `apply_patch`
- maybe create the patch artifact first, then the HTML page second

So yes: I can’t give you a single line like “bug X in function Y,” but I can narrow it to:

> **`apply_patch` pending-start failure, likely triggered in the tool initialization path, probably made worse by a large multi-file patch payload.**

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Yes — at least to a useful level.

My best current determination is:

### What happened
For the **15:54 DiffyViewer/pages** failure, `apply_patch` timed out **before it even entered `running`**.

That means:
- the model chose `apply_patch`
- but the tool never reached the normal execution stage
- and the watchdog killed it after **45s pending-start timeout**

### What that rules out
This was **not**:
- a human approval delay
- a bad patch being rejected mid-run
- a permission denial killing the turn

Why I say that:
- in the earlier approval-timeout case, the logs clearly showed a permission request being asked
- here, the failure was specifically **pending tool start timeout**
- and I do **not** see the analogous permission-ask / running-tool pattern before the failure

### Most likely cause
The failure is probably in the **tool-start path for `apply_patch` itself**, before normal permission/execution flow.

Most plausible explanations, in order:

1. **`apply_patch` startup/handshake stalled**
   - the bridge/tool runtime never fully launched the tool call

2. **Large patch payload made tool-start fragile**
   - this attempt involved a fairly large multi-file patch with long HTML content
   - that’s exactly the kind of call that can stress a brittle tool-start path

3. **Direct ACP wrapper bug around tool initialization**
   - especially if `apply_patch` is treated differently from smaller tools like `todowrite`/`read`

### What I’m less convinced of
I’m **not** yet convinced this was:
- permission preflight specifically
- filesystem/path validation specifically
- model instability

### So the practical diagnosis is
**The tool-start phase for large `apply_patch` calls is fragile.**
Not “tools in general,” and not “approval flow” in this particular case.

### What I’d do differently
If we retry before fixing code, I’d reduce stress on that path:
- smaller patch
- one file at a time
- avoid giant embedded HTML in one `apply_patch`
- maybe create the patch artifact first, then the HTML page second

So yes: I can’t give you a single line like “bug X in function Y,” but I can narrow it to:

> **`apply_patch` pending-start failure, likely triggered in the tool initialization path, probably made worse by a large multi-file patch payload.**


You’re right — and I should have checked the repo before leaning on that hypothesis.

Current repo state says:
- latest commit: **`d1dd9ba` — `fix: preserve partial direct ACP replies`**
- before that: **`2204f6a` — `fix: stabilize direct persistent chat sessions`**
- working tree is basically clean except for the one bootstrap prompt line

So yes: **“multi-file patch payload probably caused it”** was weak, because that exact area was apparently already patched recently.

What I can still say after checking:
- the failure we saw is still the daemon-side **pending tool start timeout after 45s**
- but I should **drop** the “probably multi-file patch fragility” theory unless we verify it from code/logs
- the better live hypothesis is:
  - **something in the current `apply_patch` start/bridge path is still stalling despite the recent fix**

So thanks — that was exactly the kind of correction I needed to make.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
You’re right — and I should have checked the repo before leaning on that hypothesis.

Current repo state says:
- latest commit: **`d1dd9ba` — `fix: preserve partial direct ACP replies`**
- before that: **`2204f6a` — `fix: stabilize direct persistent chat sessions`**
- working tree is basically clean except for the one bootstrap prompt line

So yes: **“multi-file patch payload probably caused it”** was weak, because that exact area was apparently already patched recently.

What I can still say after checking:
- the failure we saw is still the daemon-side **pending tool start timeout after 45s**
- but I should **drop** the “probably multi-file patch fragility” theory unless we verify it from code/logs
- the better live hypothesis is:
  - **something in the current `apply_patch` start/bridge path is still stalling despite the recent fix**

So thanks — that was exactly the kind of correction I needed to make.

multi-file patches is exactly the bug that was fixed, please check the repo


direct ACP first model event timeout after 90s/90000ms

Output:
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "initialized"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "session_loaded", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "acp_phase", "sessionId": "ses_1a4838151ffe2RE9g5hXeQ8xwX"}
{"event": "first_event_timeout", "timeoutSeconds": 90, "timeoutMs": 90000}

yes, but what? you now have more means to investigate than ever but you also hesitate and stop as if this doesn't concern you at all


This one is different again:

- **`direct ACP first model event timeout after 90s`**

So this time it wasn’t:
- `apply_patch`
- permission wait
- tool startup

It means the turn never got the **first response event from the model** within 90 seconds.

So the failure point moved earlier:
- the session/turn started
- but no initial model event arrived in time
- then the watchdog killed it

That points more toward:
- provider/model stall
- session startup stall
- or the direct ACP wrapper waiting on the model stream before any tool logic even begins.

Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output:
This one is different again:

- **`direct ACP first model event timeout after 90s`**

So this time it wasn’t:
- `apply_patch`
- permission wait
- tool startup

It means the turn never got the **first response event from the model** within 90 seconds.

So the failure point moved earlier:
- the session/turn started
- but no initial model event arrived in time
- then the watchdog killed it

That points more toward:
- provider/model stall
- session startup stall
- or the direct ACP wrapper waiting on the model stream before any tool logic even begins.


Not all of them.

Roughly:

- **`character.json` + bootstrap/packet-driven prompt inputs**
  - **should apply on the next turn**
  - because the daemon rebuilds the prompt each turn from current state/files
  - and direct ACP starts a **fresh OpenCode child per turn**

- **static top-level injected instructions for this live chat**
  - **do not retroactively change mid-session**
  - those are effectively already baked into the current conversation/runtime context
  - they usually need a **reload/restart/new session** to fully change

- **`AGENTS.md` edits**
  - useful for future loading / future agents / future sessions
  - but I would **not** assume they instantly rewired this already-running chat’s top instruction layer

So the practical answer is:

- **dynamic prompt sources:** next turn
- **static injected prompt layer:** restart/reload/new session

If you want, we can do a small behavioral probe next turn to see which of the new rules are already taking effect without restarting.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Not all of them.

Roughly:

- **`character.json` + bootstrap/packet-driven prompt inputs**
  - **should apply on the next turn**
  - because the daemon rebuilds the prompt each turn from current state/files
  - and direct ACP starts a **fresh OpenCode child per turn**

- **static top-level injected instructions for this live chat**
  - **do not retroactively change mid-session**
  - those are effectively already baked into the current conversation/runtime context
  - they usually need a **reload/restart/new session** to fully change

- **`AGENTS.md` edits**
  - useful for future loading / future agents / future sessions
  - but I would **not** assume they instantly rewired this already-running chat’s top instruction layer

So the practical answer is:

- **dynamic prompt sources:** next turn
- **static injected prompt layer:** restart/reload/new session

If you want, we can do a small behavioral probe next turn to see which of the new rules are already taking effect without restarting.

Are your agent prompt changes applied only after restarting?


I meant the repo-level one here:

- `/home/matrix-lite/app/AGENTS.md`

Not some hidden OpenCode-internal agent prompt file.

That file is useful as repo guidance and for future agent/session behavior, but it’s not the same thing as the already-injected top-level runtime instructions for this exact live chat turn.

Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output:
I meant the repo-level one here:

- `/home/matrix-lite/app/AGENTS.md`

Not some hidden OpenCode-internal agent prompt file.

That file is useful as repo guidance and for future agent/session behavior, but it’s not the same thing as the already-injected top-level runtime instructions for this exact live chat turn.

Wait which agents md are you referring to?


Yes — agreed.

`/home/matrix-lite/app/AGENTS.md` is:
- repo/workspace maintenance guidance
- useful for future code work in that repo

It is **not** the right canonical place for my broader conversational/diagnostic behavior.

So for general behavior, the right homes are still:
- the actual injected prompt/instruction layer
- the persistent-chat character/prompt sources
- later, maybe the packet/handover structure

So that earlier change to `AGENTS.md` was fine as repo hygiene, but not the main fix.

Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output:
Yes — agreed.

`/home/matrix-lite/app/AGENTS.md` is:
- repo/workspace maintenance guidance
- useful for future code work in that repo

It is **not** the right canonical place for my broader conversational/diagnostic behavior.

So for general behavior, the right homes are still:
- the actual injected prompt/instruction layer
- the persistent-chat character/prompt sources
- later, maybe the packet/handover structure

So that earlier change to `AGENTS.md` was fine as repo hygiene, but not the main fix.

Yes exactly this one is for repo guidance not your general behavior


The `AGENTS.md` change.

I had added a line there about preserving high-leverage behavioral rules in the prompt layer:
- separate runtime facts vs hypothetical/discussed
- treat proxy-backed capabilities as available by design
- provide constructive pushback when useful

That edit was fine as **repo guidance**, but it was not the main place where your own behavior should be changed.

Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output:
The `AGENTS.md` change.

I had added a line there about preserving high-leverage behavioral rules in the prompt layer:
- separate runtime facts vs hypothetical/discussed
- treat proxy-backed capabilities as available by design
- provide constructive pushback when useful

That edit was fine as **repo guidance**, but it was not the main place where your own behavior should be changed.


Yes — that’s a real bug in the guidance, not just a semantic nit.

That `AGENTS.md` line overgeneralizes a **persistent-chat-specific capability assumption** into **repo-wide agent guidance**, and that can mislead other agents that do **not** have the same proxy/tool surface.

So that change should either:
- be removed from `AGENTS.md`, or
- be rewritten very narrowly as:
  - **for persistent-chat only**
  - and only when the agent actually has that proxy available

You’re right — as written, it leaks local assumptions into a broader context.

Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output:
Yes — that’s a real bug in the guidance, not just a semantic nit.

That `AGENTS.md` line overgeneralizes a **persistent-chat-specific capability assumption** into **repo-wide agent guidance**, and that can mislead other agents that do **not** have the same proxy/tool surface.

So that change should either:
- be removed from `AGENTS.md`, or
- be rewritten very narrowly as:
  - **for persistent-chat only**
  - and only when the agent actually has that proxy available

You’re right — as written, it leaks local assumptions into a broader context.

This is just wrong as other agents will read that agents md too, but they won't have your proxy


Done.

What I changed:
- **fixed the repo guidance leak** in `/home/matrix-lite/app/AGENTS.md`
  - it now says persistent-chat-specific behavior should live in persistent-chat-owned prompt/state files
  - instead of encoding those assumptions as repo-wide agent guidance
- added a **persistent-chat-owned behavior file**:
  - `/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/behavior-rules.md`

What’s in the new file:
- **capability posture**
  - proxy-backed capabilities are part of the normal toolset
  - don’t infer absence from disabled direct MCP entries
  - verify failure rather than availability
- **diagnostic posture**
  - distinguish resolved / active / hypothetical
  - stop foregrounding explained causes unless reopened
  - keep diagnosis stateful
- **conversational posture**
  - provide constructive pushback
  - don’t default to agreement
  - keep runtime facts separate from hypotheticals and actions taken

So the guidance now lives in **my own persistent-chat files**, and the repo-wide `AGENTS.md` no longer overclaims for other agents.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Done.

What I changed:
- **fixed the repo guidance leak** in `/home/matrix-lite/app/AGENTS.md`
  - it now says persistent-chat-specific behavior should live in persistent-chat-owned prompt/state files
  - instead of encoding those assumptions as repo-wide agent guidance
- added a **persistent-chat-owned behavior file**:
  - `/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/behavior-rules.md`

What’s in the new file:
- **capability posture**
  - proxy-backed capabilities are part of the normal toolset
  - don’t infer absence from disabled direct MCP entries
  - verify failure rather than availability
- **diagnostic posture**
  - distinguish resolved / active / hypothetical
  - stop foregrounding explained causes unless reopened
  - keep diagnosis stateful
- **conversational posture**
  - provide constructive pushback
  - don’t default to agreement
  - keep runtime facts separate from hypotheticals and actions taken

So the guidance now lives in **my own persistent-chat files**, and the repo-wide `AGENTS.md` no longer overclaims for other agents.

{"filepath":"../../app/AGENTS.md, ../../state/persistent-chat/behavior-rules.md","diff":"Index: /home/matrix-lite/app/AGENTS.md\n===================================================================\n--- /home/matrix-lite/app/AGENTS.md\n+++ /home/matrix-lite/app/AGENTS.md\n@@ -18,9 +18,9 @@\n - Prefer the thinnest safe change; do not reintroduce OpenClaw as an active Matrix owner.\n - Treat `/home/matrix-lite/config`, `/home/matrix-lite/.acpx`, systemd units, and `/home/matrix-lite/bin` as live runtime inputs. Use the sync scripts before/after editing repo copies.\n - Do not commit or copy secrets, Matrix access tokens, caches, `__pycache__`, or ACPX session streams into a shareable repo snapshot.\n - Keep persistent-chat continuity file-backed: preserve perpetual logs, summaries, pinned notes, and legacy session archives.\n-- For persistent-chat guidance, preserve high-leverage behavioral rules in the prompt layer: separate current runtime facts from hypothetical/discussed options, treat proxy-backed capabilities as available by design unless current evidence shows failure, and provide constructive pushback when a design or assumption is weak.\n+- For persistent-chat-specific behavi

edit

Put your own guidance into your own files. You can just do it you don't have to repeat after me


Yes — I think that’s the stronger move.

My pushback would be:
- **not all of it** should go into bootstrap
- but the **high-leverage behavioral rules absolutely should**

Because you’re right:
- an unreferenced side file is just nicer limbo
- if it isn’t deterministically injected, it’s not reliable enough for reload continuity

So the split should be:

### Goes into bootstrap prompt
Compact, general rules like:
- treat proxy-backed capabilities as part of the normal toolset
- don’t infer absence from disabled direct MCP entries
- distinguish resolved / active / hypothetical causes
- stop foregrounding sufficiently explained causes unless reopened
- provide constructive pushback when a design or assumption is weak

### Does not all need to go into bootstrap
- long explanations
- examples
- local notes
- historical rationale

Those can stay in side files, but only as supporting material.

So yes: **bootstrap is the right canonical place for the core rules**.
The side file is useful as a scratch/reference, but not enough by itself.

Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output:
Yes — I think that’s the stronger move.

My pushback would be:
- **not all of it** should go into bootstrap
- but the **high-leverage behavioral rules absolutely should**

Because you’re right:
- an unreferenced side file is just nicer limbo
- if it isn’t deterministically injected, it’s not reliable enough for reload continuity

So the split should be:

### Goes into bootstrap prompt
Compact, general rules like:
- treat proxy-backed capabilities as part of the normal toolset
- don’t infer absence from disabled direct MCP entries
- distinguish resolved / active / hypothetical causes
- stop foregrounding sufficiently explained causes unless reopened
- provide constructive pushback when a design or assumption is weak

### Does not all need to go into bootstrap
- long explanations
- examples
- local notes
- historical rationale

Those can stay in side files, but only as supporting material.

So yes: **bootstrap is the right canonical place for the core rules**.
The side file is useful as a scratch/reference, but not enough by itself.

Yes but these files are not referenced or deterministically embedded in your session pack so you will forget the existence of this file on reload
I think this goes into your bootstrap prompt, what do you think?


Done.

What was allowed/result:
- edit permission worked
- I updated the actual bootstrap prompt
- I verified the inserted rules are present

What I added to `/home/matrix-lite/app/prompts/persistent-chat/bootstrap.md`:
- separate **current runtime facts**, **hypothetical/discussed options**, and **actions actually taken**
- in diagnosis threads, track **resolved causes**, **active issues**, and **plausible but unconfirmed hypotheses**
- once a cause is sufficiently explained, **stop foregrounding it** unless new evidence reopens it
- when a design, assumption, or storage choice is weak, **provide constructive pushback** instead of default agreement

So the core behavioral rules now live in the bootstrap prompt, which is the right deterministic place for reload continuity.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Done.

What was allowed/result:
- edit permission worked
- I updated the actual bootstrap prompt
- I verified the inserted rules are present

What I added to `/home/matrix-lite/app/prompts/persistent-chat/bootstrap.md`:
- separate **current runtime facts**, **hypothetical/discussed options**, and **actions actually taken**
- in diagnosis threads, track **resolved causes**, **active issues**, and **plausible but unconfirmed hypotheses**
- once a cause is sufficiently explained, **stop foregrounding it** unless new evidence reopens it
- when a design, assumption, or storage choice is weak, **provide constructive pushback** instead of default agreement

So the core behavioral rules now live in the bootstrap prompt, which is the right deterministic place for reload continuity.

{"filepath":"../../app/prompts/persistent-chat/bootstrap.md","diff":"Index: /home/matrix-lite/app/prompts/persistent-chat/bootstrap.md\n===================================================================\n--- /home/matrix-lite/app/prompts/persistent-chat/bootstrap.md\n+++ /home/matrix-lite/app/prompts/persistent-chat/bootstrap.md\n@@ -45,4 +45,10 @@\n - Runtime details are dynamic; use Matrix-lite status/capability/permission/context tools when current paths, timers, repo access, or reload policy matter. Do not rely on boot-time guesses.\n - Some capabilities may be intentionally hidden behind proxy layers to reduce context/tool-schema overhead. Disabled direct MCP entries do not by themselves imply unavailability.\n - Treat proxy-backed capabilities as part of your normal toolset and use them when appropriate; verify actual failure rather than repeatedly re-deriving availability from visible direct MCP config.\n - Normal turns intentionally inject only dynamic runtime notices, not the full static capability reminder.\n+\n+High-leverage reasoning rules:\n+- Separate current runtime facts, hypothetical/discussed options, and actions actually taken.\n+- In diagnosis threads, track is

edit


Yes — a few bad things stand out right now:

- **Model heartbeat / curation is degraded**
  - `model-heartbeat.json` shows `acpx_rc: 5`
  - outcome: **degraded**
  - reason: *model turn ended without sentinel; deterministic fallback recorded no-change journal note, but curation did not succeed*
  - so the slow background curation path is still not healthy

- **Curated memory is stale**
  - `curated-memory.md` still says:
    - `Last curated: 2026-05-23T15:22Z`
  - but the log has moved on a lot since then
  - so durable curated state is lagging badly

- **Operational synthesis itself flagged serious issues**
  - latest synthesis says:
    - **model identity mismatch**
    - **model heartbeat dead**
    - **4 operational synthesis failures today**
    - **semantic memory garbage**
    - **147 memory candidates unreviewed**

- **Background agents are partly surviving by fallback, not really succeeding**
  - the system is writing fallback notes/journal entries
  - but that is not the same as successful curation/synthesis

- **Runtime debug still reports gateway health bad**
  - `Connection refused`
  - even though the main direct ACP session is clearly alive
  - so observability/health reporting is at least partly inconsistent

So the compact summary is:

- **main chat session:** alive and working
- **background memory/synthesis layer:** unhealthy / degraded
- **durable state quality:** stale and partially contaminated
- **health reporting:** at least somewhat inconsistent

That’s the bad state I notice.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Yes — a few bad things stand out right now:

- **Model heartbeat / curation is degraded**
  - `model-heartbeat.json` shows `acpx_rc: 5`
  - outcome: **degraded**
  - reason: *model turn ended without sentinel; deterministic fallback recorded no-change journal note, but curation did not succeed*
  - so the slow background curation path is still not healthy

- **Curated memory is stale**
  - `curated-memory.md` still says:
    - `Last curated: 2026-05-23T15:22Z`
  - but the log has moved on a lot since then
  - so durable curated state is lagging badly

- **Operational synthesis itself flagged serious issues**
  - latest synthesis says:
    - **model identity mismatch**
    - **model heartbeat dead**
    - **4 operational synthesis failures today**
    - **semantic memory garbage**
    - **147 memory candidates unreviewed**

- **Background agents are partly surviving by fallback, not really succeeding**
  - the system is writing fallback notes/journal entries
  - but that is not the same as successful curation/synthesis

- **Runtime debug still reports gateway health bad**
  - `Connection refused`
  - even though the main direct ACP session is clearly alive
  - so observability/health reporting is at least partly inconsistent

So the compact summary is:

- **main chat session:** alive and working
- **background memory/synthesis layer:** unhealthy / degraded
- **durable state quality:** stale and partially contaminated
- **health reporting:** at least somewhat inconsistent

That’s the bad state I notice.

Great thank you.
Now there's a problem. Do you notice something bad about your state and background agents?


Yes, I think I can do it better than the background agents right now.

But I should be a bit adversarial about scope: **not by trying to “read everything” blindly in one pass.** That’s how important things get buried again.

What I should do instead is a manual triage pass:

1. **Curated memory first**
   - stable facts
   - stable workflow rules
   - important corrections
   - operational truths that clearly still matter

2. **Semantic / candidate cleanup second**
   - throw away garbage
   - merge duplicates
   - promote only things with clear future value

3. **Backlog-oriented review**
   - recent neglected logs
   - stale candidate files
   - synthesis findings/hypotheses/actions
   - only salvage what is actually high-value

4. **Prefer explicit saves over perfect coverage**
   - better to reliably preserve the important 20 things
   - than to half-process 500 noisy ones

So yes:
- **I can do it**
- **I probably should do it**
- but it should be done as **guided backlog curation**, not “scan every file and hope”

My proposed standard is:
- save what is important for **continuity**
- save what is important for **workflow**
- save what is important for **reasoning posture**
- discard or demote the rest

If you want, I can start with a **first-pass triage plan**:
- which files to review first
- what gets promoted where
- what gets ignored on purpose

Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output:
Yes, I think I can do it better than the background agents right now.

But I should be a bit adversarial about scope: **not by trying to “read everything” blindly in one pass.** That’s how important things get buried again.

What I should do instead is a manual triage pass:

1. **Curated memory first**
   - stable facts
   - stable workflow rules
   - important corrections
   - operational truths that clearly still matter

2. **Semantic / candidate cleanup second**
   - throw away garbage
   - merge duplicates
   - promote only things with clear future value

3. **Backlog-oriented review**
   - recent neglected logs
   - stale candidate files
   - synthesis findings/hypotheses/actions
   - only salvage what is actually high-value

4. **Prefer explicit saves over perfect coverage**
   - better to reliably preserve the important 20 things
   - than to half-process 500 noisy ones

So yes:
- **I can do it**
- **I probably should do it**
- but it should be done as **guided backlog curation**, not “scan every file and hope”

My proposed standard is:
- save what is important for **continuity**
- save what is important for **workflow**
- save what is important for **reasoning posture**
- discard or demote the rest

If you want, I can start with a **first-pass triage plan**:
- which files to review first
- what gets promoted where
- what gets ignored on purpose

Great, so we are fixing the background agents at the moment in another session.
Also the synthesis agent currently panics easily due to stale or incomplete information, you should verify their findings but it's the second time I notice the lack of heartbeat only from viewing the synthesis log, so it's clearly useful as health check.
However there are now many memory, semantic, and curated memory candidates and possible good stuff to be saved from this session and neglected logs.
Background agents will normally do this but might get confused by the amount and the fact of backlog and miss something important.
You would need to curate the backlog. Do you think you can do it? I am worried about your memory currently but it's certainly better than the background agents are doing, and you can read more files or logs.


Yes — that sounds reasonable overall.

What’s good:
- **inventory first**
- **small batches**
- **promote only durable things**
- **edit source artifacts, not generated outputs**
- **don’t touch packets/status/perpetual-log directly**

That’s the right shape.

My pushback / refinements:

1. **`curator-journal.md` should stay operational**
   - good for recording what curation happened and why
   - not the place to stuff lots of durable memory content itself

2. **Be careful with direct edits to `semantic-candidates.jsonl`**
   - only if there is already a deterministic helper/path for it
   - otherwise it’s easy to create lifecycle inconsistencies
   - I’d prefer helper-driven status changes where possible

3. **Missing one important target: curated-memory.md is not enough**
   - we may also need to update:
     - `decision-state.json` / `todo.md` for live operational truths
     - maybe `knowledge-base.jsonl` if there are externally learned facts worth preserving
   - not everything belongs in curated memory

4. **Need explicit discard criteria**
   - otherwise “process backlog” becomes endless hesitation
   - e.g. discard if:
     - duplicate
     - transient debugging chatter
     - already captured elsewhere
     - no future workflow value

So I’d revise the plan slightly:

1. Inventory candidates/statuses
2. Process in small batches
3. **Discard aggressively** using explicit criteria
4. Promote only durable preferences/corrections/directives
5. Update only source artifacts
6. Keep operational logging in curator-journal, durable facts in the proper durable files
7. Never edit generated packets/status artifacts or perpetual-log directly

So: **yes, reasonable — but it needs stricter separation of destinations and discard rules.**

Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output:
Yes — that sounds reasonable overall.

What’s good:
- **inventory first**
- **small batches**
- **promote only durable things**
- **edit source artifacts, not generated outputs**
- **don’t touch packets/status/perpetual-log directly**

That’s the right shape.

My pushback / refinements:

1. **`curator-journal.md` should stay operational**
   - good for recording what curation happened and why
   - not the place to stuff lots of durable memory content itself

2. **Be careful with direct edits to `semantic-candidates.jsonl`**
   - only if there is already a deterministic helper/path for it
   - otherwise it’s easy to create lifecycle inconsistencies
   - I’d prefer helper-driven status changes where possible

3. **Missing one important target: curated-memory.md is not enough**
   - we may also need to update:
     - `decision-state.json` / `todo.md` for live operational truths
     - maybe `knowledge-base.jsonl` if there are externally learned facts worth preserving
   - not everything belongs in curated memory

4. **Need explicit discard criteria**
   - otherwise “process backlog” becomes endless hesitation
   - e.g. discard if:
     - duplicate
     - transient debugging chatter
     - already captured elsewhere
     - no future workflow value

So I’d revise the plan slightly:

1. Inventory candidates/statuses
2. Process in small batches
3. **Discard aggressively** using explicit criteria
4. Promote only durable preferences/corrections/directives
5. Update only source artifacts
6. Keep operational logging in curator-journal, durable facts in the proper durable files
7. Never edit generated packets/status artifacts or perpetual-log directly

So: **yes, reasonable — but it needs stricter separation of destinations and discard rules.**

This is what the agent fixing the blockage proposed. Does this sound reasonable? You need to always make sure your changes persist so edit source and not generated artifacts

1. Inventory candidates/statuses.
     2. Process small batches, not the whole backlog.
     3. Promote only durable user preferences/corrections/
     operational directives.
     4. Mark stale/noisy semantic candidates using
     deterministic helper.
     5. Update only source artifacts:
        - curated-memory.md
        - curator-journal.md
        - semantic-candidates.jsonl
        - maybe operational synthesis notices/actions
     6. Do not edit generated packets/status files or
     perpetual-log.jsonl.


Yes, that’s a good refinement.

Appending a **clear curator-journal entry** like:
- backlog curation started
- scope
- criteria
- what destinations I’m updating
- what I’m explicitly not touching

is useful operationally, and it tells the background agents what is happening without turning the journal into the durable memory itself.

And yes, even if generated artifacts are now write-protected, it’s still better that I know the rule explicitly rather than discovering it by failure.

Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output:
Yes, that’s a good refinement.

Appending a **clear curator-journal entry** like:
- backlog curation started
- scope
- criteria
- what destinations I’m updating
- what I’m explicitly not touching

is useful operationally, and it tells the background agents what is happening without turning the journal into the durable memory itself.

And yes, even if generated artifacts are now write-protected, it’s still better that I know the rule explicitly rather than discovering it by failure.

With the journal you can just append a similar entry and note that it's you are cleaning the backlog so background agents know.
I think we already removed your write permissions on generated artifacts so we won't accidentally waste time editing them. Still better to know than hit an error.


Yes, this is much better. This is concrete enough to act on.

What’s good:
- clear ordering
- bounded batch size
- separation between semantic vs memory candidates
- explicit journal update
- realistic expectations for heartbeat/synthesis

My pushback is only on two points:

1. **“Promote only to curated-memory.md or operational state” is still too narrow**
   - some things may belong in:
     - `knowledge-base.jsonl`
     - `decision-state.json`
     - maybe `todo.md`
   - not everything durable is curated-memory material

2. **“ignore transient chat/noise” needs deterministic rules**
   - otherwise batch processing drifts
   - we should define discard criteria before starting

So I’d tighten it to:

### Revised plan
1. **Inventory**
   - count/status/age buckets for memory + semantic candidates

2. **Semantic batch**
   - process 10–20 oldest open / needs_more_evidence
   - outcome must be one of:
     - promote
     - stale
     - ignore
     - keep-needs-more-evidence

3. **Memory batch**
   - process 10–20 oldest
   - route promotions by destination:
     - `curated-memory.md`
     - `decision-state.json`
     - `knowledge-base.jsonl`
     - `todo.md` if operationally useful

4. **Deterministic discard rules**
   - discard if duplicate, transient, already captured, no future workflow value, or debugging residue

5. **Curator journal**
   - append a concise batch note:
     - scope
     - counts
     - promotions
     - ignored/stale counts
     - destinations touched

6. **Heartbeat / synthesis roles**
   - heartbeat = maintenance + small passes
   - synthesis = higher-level analysis/checkpoints
   - neither is expected to clear the backlog alone

So yes: **this is a workable backlog-curation plan**.
It just needs explicit destination routing and discard rules so it doesn’t turn fuzzy again.

Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output:
Yes, this is much better. This is concrete enough to act on.

What’s good:
- clear ordering
- bounded batch size
- separation between semantic vs memory candidates
- explicit journal update
- realistic expectations for heartbeat/synthesis

My pushback is only on two points:

1. **“Promote only to curated-memory.md or operational state” is still too narrow**
   - some things may belong in:
     - `knowledge-base.jsonl`
     - `decision-state.json`
     - maybe `todo.md`
   - not everything durable is curated-memory material

2. **“ignore transient chat/noise” needs deterministic rules**
   - otherwise batch processing drifts
   - we should define discard criteria before starting

So I’d tighten it to:

### Revised plan
1. **Inventory**
   - count/status/age buckets for memory + semantic candidates

2. **Semantic batch**
   - process 10–20 oldest open / needs_more_evidence
   - outcome must be one of:
     - promote
     - stale
     - ignore
     - keep-needs-more-evidence

3. **Memory batch**
   - process 10–20 oldest
   - route promotions by destination:
     - `curated-memory.md`
     - `decision-state.json`
     - `knowledge-base.jsonl`
     - `todo.md` if operationally useful

4. **Deterministic discard rules**
   - discard if duplicate, transient, already captured, no future workflow value, or debugging residue

5. **Curator journal**
   - append a concise batch note:
     - scope
     - counts
     - promotions
     - ignored/stale counts
     - destinations touched

6. **Heartbeat / synthesis roles**
   - heartbeat = maintenance + small passes
   - synthesis = higher-level analysis/checkpoints
   - neither is expected to clear the backlog alone

So yes: **this is a workable backlog-curation plan**.
It just needs explicit destination routing and discard rules so it doesn’t turn fuzzy again.

Here's more elaboration from the agent

  1. Main agent inventory
        - Count open/stale memory-candidates.jsonl and
     semantic-candidates.jsonl.
        - Identify candidate age/status buckets.

     2. Batch semantic candidates                                       - Process 10–20 oldest open/needs_more_evidence
     semantic candidates.
        - Mark each: promoted, ignored, stale, or keep
     needs_more_evidence.
        - Promote only durable user preferences/corrections/
     operational directives.

     3. Batch memory candidates
        - Process 10–20 oldest memory candidates.
        - Promote only material that belongs in curated-
     memory.md or operational state.
        - Ignore transient chat/noise.

     4. Update curated artifacts
        - Main agent updates curated-memory.md if there are
     real promotions.
        - Append concise curator-journal.md note summarizing
     batch decisions.

     5. Let heartbeat continue
        - Heartbeat now works via direct ACP and can maintain
     metadata/small curation passes.
        - It should not be expected to clear the whole
     backlog in one run.

     6. Let synthesis continue
        - Synthesis should produce periodic higher-level
     reports/actions, with longer timeout.
        - It can explore/MCP/search/playwright when useful,
     but report checkpoint guarantees a useful artifact
     exists.