write/edit reject a repeated same-mode escalation with a blank justification while bash accepts it

[Matthew-Laplace]

DSH Desktop 0.2.0-rc.2 / macOS 26.6.2 (25G83) / arm64 / Bundle ID com.deepseek.dsh
Agent preset cordis; composition with a mounted confining filesystem backend; session standing mode danger-full-access
Verified against upstream master — the defect is still present

---

Summary

In a sandboxed composition, a call that repeats the session's current mode (sandbox_permissions equal to the
effective mode) with an empty justification produces opposite outcomes in two tool families:

Tool	Arguments	Result
bash	{"sandbox_permissions":"danger-full-access","justification":""}	✅ runs
write	{"sandbox_permissions":"danger-full-access","justification":""}	❌ Error: invalid justification: expected a non-empty sentence

The escalation-argument check is ordered differently in the two packages. bash's validateBashArgs()
first tests whether the request merely repeats the current mode — if so it skips validation entirely —
and it also normalizes an empty justification to undefined. The filesystem family's
FsSandboxController.resolvePolicy() calls validateEscalationArgs() unconditionally first and only
afterwards resolves the standing policy. "" is not undefined, so it is treated as "a reason was supplied but
it is blank" and rejected before anything else can happen.

This contradicts three existing pieces of documentation:

• approveEscalation() in packages/sandbox/sandbox/src/escalation.ts — "Repeating the call's effective mode returns it without approval." Its implementation is if (mode === effectiveMode) return effectiveMode, i.e. no approval prompt is ever raised for this case.
• resolvePolicy()'s own doc comment in packages/fs/tool-fs/src/sandbox.ts — "Repeating the standing mode requires no approval."
• The module header of the same file — "…so bash and fs escalate identically."

In other words, the "repeat current mode" case was explicitly exempted on the bash side (commit 8cf9c0ed,
see below), while the filesystem tools are stopped at the validation step and never reach the
"no approval needed" branch.

---

Symptom (observable criteria)

All three hold:

1. The session's effective sandbox mode is M (journal header sandboxMode: "M"; danger-full-access in the observed case).
2. A tool call carries both sandbox_permissions: "M" (equal to the effective mode) and justification: "" (empty or whitespace-only).
3. The result is an argument-validation error rather than an approval outcome:
   • write / edit → Error: invalid justification: expected a non-empty sentence
   • same arguments on bash → normal result, and no approval/request event at all.

Both branches of (3) must occur for the divergence; a blank reason being rejected is correct when the requested
mode is genuinely wider (see Notes / non-bugs).

---

Reproduction

1. Observed session journal (the actual trigger)

In one session, using the identical escalation arguments:

CALL bash   {justification:"", sandbox_permissions:"danger-full-access", run_in_background:true}
RESULT      started background job bash-627                       ← ran

CALL bash   {justification:"", sandbox_permissions:"danger-full-access"}
RESULT      (no output)                                           ← ran

CALL write  {justification:"", sandbox_permissions:"danger-full-access"}
RESULT      Error: invalid justification: expected a non-empty sentence    ← rejected

CALL write  {justification:"<a one-line reason>", sandbox_permissions:"danger-full-access"}
RESULT      Created file                                          ← succeeded after adding a reason

Why this proves the mode was identical: bash can only have passed because it hit
args.sandbox_permissions === effectiveMode and returned early — without that early return it would have thrown
the same invalid justification error. Hence effectiveMode === "danger-full-access", so the rejected write
was a no-op repeat of the current mode, which by rule needs no justification at all.

2. Control within the same session

Every bash call with sandbox_permissions + an empty justification was counted and checked:

empty justification + repeat current mode:   bash 19/19 succeeded   write 0/2 succeeded

write calls with a non-empty reason: 4/4 succeeded; edit with a non-empty reason: 1/1 succeeded.
So the failing input is exactly justification: "", and only on the filesystem family.

3. Live check on the same build

CALL bash   {command:"echo ...", justification:""}                       → runs
CALL write  {file_path:"<scratch>", content:"probe", justification:""}
             → Error: invalid escalation: justification is only valid together with sandbox_permissions

The second line shows the filesystem family also lacks the blank-string normalization that bash performs
(justification?.trim() === '' → undefined): the empty string is treated as a supplied-but-blank reason rather
than as "no reason given".

4. Upstream

On master, packages/fs/tool-fs/src/sandbox.ts:88 still performs the unconditional check while
packages/shell/tool-bash/src/index.ts:83 keeps the exemption — see Root cause.

---

Root cause

① The shared validator treats a blank string as a supplied reason

packages/sandbox/sandbox/src/escalation.ts:51

export function validateEscalationArgs(sandboxPermissions: string | undefined, justification: string | undefined): void {
  if (sandboxPermissions !== undefined && justification === undefined) {
    throw new Error('invalid escalation: sandbox_permissions requires a justification')
  }
  if (justification !== undefined && sandboxPermissions === undefined) {
    throw new Error('invalid escalation: justification is only valid together with sandbox_permissions')
  }
  if (justification !== undefined && justification.trim().length === 0) {
    throw new Error('invalid justification: expected a non-empty sentence')
  }
}

The function behaves as documented. The problem is that callers do not remove the no-op repeat-current-mode
case before invoking it.

② bash has the exemption and the normalization

packages/shell/tool-bash/src/index.ts:83

if (args.sandbox_permissions !== undefined && args.sandbox_permissions === effectiveMode) return
const justification = args.sandbox_permissions === undefined && args.justification?.trim() === ''
  ? undefined
  : args.justification
validateEscalationArgs(args.sandbox_permissions, justification)

This came from commit 8cf9c0ed (2026-09-20, "fix(bash): allow blank justification without escalation" /
"permit empty reasons when repeating the current mode"). Its file list is limited to
packages/shell/tool-bash/** (source, three-language README, tests/tools.spec.ts, and the snapshot
snapshots/session/bash-same-mode-empty-justification).

③ The filesystem family validates before resolving the standing policy

packages/fs/tool-fs/src/sandbox.ts:87

async resolvePolicy(toolName: string, args: FsEscalationArgs, exec: ToolExecution): Promise<SandboxExecutionPolicy | undefined> {
  validateEscalationArgs(args.sandbox_permissions, args.justification)   // ← line 88: unconditional
  const standingPolicy = this.policy?.resolve({ ...exec.agent ? { session: exec.agent.session } : {} })
  if (args.sandbox_permissions === undefined || args.justification === undefined) {
    return standingPolicy
  }
  ...

Both write (packages/fs/tool-fs/src/write.ts) and edit (edit.ts) go through this single path
(resolvePolicy("write", …) / resolvePolicy("edit", …)). Even with a non-empty reason there is no
args.sandbox_permissions === standingPolicy.mode short-circuit, so the call continues into
approveEscalation(), where if (mode === effectiveMode) return effectiveMode returns immediately without
prompting. In other words, line 88 is the only thing standing in the way.

④ Same gap in pwsh and the PTC run_code

• packages/shell/tool-pwsh/src/index.ts:118

  // The escalation pairing (sandbox_permissions ⇔ justification, non-empty) is
  // the shared rule both enforcing families validate identically.
  validateEscalationArgs(args.sandbox_permissions, args.justification)

  validatePwshArgs() does not even receive effectiveMode, so it structurally cannot apply the same-mode
  exemption (Windows hosts are affected too). The comment claiming both enforcing families validate identically is stale.
• packages/core/tools/src/ptc.ts:385: run_code has the same validate-then-resolve ordering.

⑤ Why tests did not catch it

Location	Coverage
packages/shell/tool-bash/tests/tools.spec.ts:783-800	Explicitly tests undefined / '' / ' \t\n' justifications for a repeated same-mode request, asserting isError === false and no approval prompt — this is the intended spec
snapshots/session/bash-same-mode-empty-justification/	End-to-end snapshot for bash same-mode blank reason
packages/fs/tool-fs/tests/tools.spec.ts:967	The filesystem family does have a "same mode" case, but its reason is hard-coded non-empty ('use the current permissions'), so the blank branch is never exercised

The spec exists only on the bash side; the fs same-mode test happens to sidestep the blank reason.

---

Scope: four tools are affected

write, edit (packages/fs/tool-fs/src/sandbox.ts:88), pwsh (packages/shell/tool-pwsh/src/index.ts:118),
and PTC run_code (packages/core/tools/src/ptc.ts:385). Only bash carries both the same-mode exemption and
the blank-string normalization.

---

Impact

1. One wasted step per occurrence. Recovery requires re-issuing the call with a non-empty reason. In the observed
   case the rejected call was the first draft of a ~23 KB generated script; the retry wrote a different script
   (~22.9 KB, different docstring and structure). The draft was never written to disk and exists only in the session
   journal, so the artifact the user ends up with is not the one the model intended to write.
2. The error message misleads. It says "your reason was blank" when the real semantics are "you are repeating the
   current mode, which needs no reason". The model learns "never leave the reason empty" instead of
   "repeating the current mode needs no reason".
3. Tools disagree on identical input, which no prompt-level description can express stably. For models that
   default to an empty justification (the triggering model did: 42 calls carried sandbox_permissions, 21 of them
   with a blank reason — 19 on bash, all accepted; 2 on write, both rejected), this is not sporadic: the first
   write of every file fails.
4. No data corruption and no privilege bypass: genuinely wider escalations are still rejected for a blank reason.

---

Suggested fix

P0 — port the bash exemption into the filesystem family (minimal)

packages/fs/tool-fs/src/sandbox.ts:

async resolvePolicy(toolName: string, args: FsEscalationArgs, exec: ToolExecution): Promise<SandboxExecutionPolicy | undefined> {
  const standingPolicy = this.policy?.resolve({ ...exec.agent ? { session: exec.agent.session } : {} })

  // Same as validateBashArgs: repeating the current mode is a no-op and needs no reason
  if (args.sandbox_permissions !== undefined && args.sandbox_permissions === standingPolicy?.mode) {
    return standingPolicy
  }
  const justification = args.sandbox_permissions === undefined && args.justification?.trim() === ''
    ? undefined
    : args.justification
  validateEscalationArgs(args.sandbox_permissions, justification)

  if (args.sandbox_permissions === undefined || justification === undefined) return standingPolicy
  ...
  // approveEscalation must receive the normalized `justification`, not args.justification

This covers write and edit at once (single resolvePolicy).

P1 — close the rest of the family

• validatePwshArgs(args, effectiveMode): add the parameter and mirror bash's two rules; update pwsh's
  "both enforcing families validate identically" comment.
• packages/core/tools/src/ptc.ts (run_code): resolve the standing policy first, then judge.

P2 — pin the semantics with tests

• packages/fs/tool-fs/tests/tools.spec.ts: combine it.each([undefined, '', ' \t\n']) with
  sandbox_permissions: mode, asserting isError === false and that no approval/request fires (i.e. port
  tool-bash/tests/tools.spec.ts:783 to fs).
• Add snapshots/session/fs-same-mode-empty-justification/, symmetric to the existing bash snapshot.
• Keep/extend the negative case: a strictly wider target with a blank reason must keep failing
  (tool-bash/tests/tools.spec.ts:741 already covers this correct behavior).

P3 — optional: make the message self-explanatory

Once the same-mode decision is moved ahead of validation, invalid justification can only arise for a genuine
widening. Consider appending the way out, e.g.
invalid justification: expected a non-empty sentence (repeating the current mode needs no justification).

---

Expected behavior

Call	Expected
sandbox_permissions absent + blank justification	Treat the reason as not supplied; execute at the current mode (bash today; fs should match)
sandbox_permissions == current mode, reason undefined / '' / ' \t\n'	Execute directly; no reason validation, no approval prompt (bash today; fs should match)
sandbox_permissions == current mode, non-empty reason	Execute directly, no prompt (fs already runs, but only after a meaningless validation pass)
sandbox_permissions strictly wider + blank reason	Reject: invalid justification: expected a non-empty sentence (correct today — do not change)
Exactly one of sandbox_permissions / justification present	Reject (correct today — do not change)

---

Notes / non-bugs

• A blank reason for a genuinely wider mode must keep failing. It prevents an under-justified privilege request;
  bash's tests/tools.spec.ts:741 tests exactly that. This report only argues that the no-op repeat of the
  current mode must not be stopped.
• No privilege bypass or data loss occurs. The rejection happens during argument validation, before any file
  operation; a retry with a reason succeeds.
• The model/relay side is not at fault. It extrapolated from behavior bash already exhibits (repeating the
  current mode needs no reason). The fix target is tool-family consistency, not teaching models which tool
  secretly requires a reason.

---

Evidence appendix

Inspecting the shipped bundle (no source checkout needed)

app.asar is plain concatenation plus a JSON header, so it can be searched by bytes:

python3 - <<'PY'
p = "/Applications/DeepSeek Harness.app/Contents/Resources/app.asar"
data = open(p, "rb").read()
i = data.find(b"async resolvePolicy(toolName, args, exec)")
print(data[i-200:i+1800].decode("utf-8", "replace"))
PY

The error text invalid justification is likewise greppable inside the bundle.

Decoding the multi-frame zstd session journal

Session journals are multi-frame zstd JSONL. Node's zlib.zstdDecompressSync decodes only the first frame
(223 bytes, measured), so use Python's zstandard:

python3 -m pip install --quiet zstandard
python3 - <<'PY'
import zstandard as zs, pathlib
p = pathlib.Path.home()/".dsh/sessions/<workspace>/<session-id>/session.v4.jsonl.zstd"
with open(p, "rb") as f, open("/tmp/session.jsonl", "wb") as g:
    zs.ZstdDecompressor().copy_stream(f, g)
PY
grep -n 'invalid justification' /tmp/session.jsonl

Facts and how each was verified

Fact	Basis
Same arguments: bash ran, write was rejected	raw tool/call + tool/result records in the session journal
Effective mode at the time was danger-full-access	bash only skips validation when the requested mode equals the effective mode; its success implies equality (plus the journal header's sandboxMode)
write 2/2 rejected, bash 19/19 accepted	aggregation over that journal by sandbox_permissions + justification
fs lacks the blank-string normalization	live check: write + justification: "" → justification is only valid together with sandbox_permissions
Still broken upstream	master: packages/fs/tool-fs/src/sandbox.ts:88 unconditional; packages/shell/tool-bash/src/index.ts:83 exempt
The exemption was added later and only for bash	commit 8cf9c0ed (2026-09-20), file list limited to packages/shell/tool-bash/**
Spec exists only on the bash side	tool-bash/tests/tools.spec.ts:783 (blank reason + same mode must pass) vs tool-fs/tests/tools.spec.ts:967 (same mode tested only with a non-empty reason)

[PerryLink]

这是跨工具不一致——而且"重复当前模式"本就不该报错

1. 你指出的两点我认同，其中第二点更容易被忽略

1. 一致性：同一件事（sandbox_permissions 等于会话当前模式）在 write/edit 被拒，在 bash 被接受 ⇒ 同类输入在不同工具上结论不同，模型无法学会规则；逐个工具各写一份校验就是这种不一致的典型来源。
2. "blank justification"：它拒绝了调用，却没说明缺什么 ⇒ 用户/模型无法修正。"拒绝 + 无理由"比"拒绝 + 有理由"糟得多，因为前者只能靠猜。

建议把诉求写成：

① 沙箱升级校验应当是一份共享实现，write/edit/bash 走同一逻辑；② 请求等于当前模式时应当是 no-op（直接通过），而不是错误；③ 若仍需拒绝，错误信息必须说明缺少什么（哪个字段、期望什么），不得为空。

2. 为什么第 ② 条是根本

"再次请求当前已有的模式"在语义上是幂等的：会话已经是 danger-full-access，再声明一次不改变任何状态。⇒ 对它报错既没有安全收益，又制造了工具间的行为差异。把这一条单独写出来，维护者一眼就能判断该改成 no-op。

3. 你已声明"已在 upstream master 验证仍然存在"——请把那段贴上

⇒ 请给文件 + 符号 + 行（你既已核对过，直接内联即可）。有了它，我可以对着当前 HEAD（0.2.1-alpha.1）逐行比一次，并把三处（write/edit/bash）的差异直接列出来——这正是这条报告最需要的一份证据。

4. 请补三样（让可复现性成立）

1. 三次调用的原文（write / edit / bash 各自的 sandbox_permissions 与 justification）——并排贴出，差异一目了然；
2. 三者的返回原文（尤其那句空 justification 的错误）；
3. 版本：你写 0.2.0-rc.2；⚠️ 当前最新是 0.2.1-alpha.1 ⇒ 请补基线（我未核这条的代码）。

一条边界

我没有核对 write/edit/bash 三处的沙箱校验代码（你已核过 master，请把位置内联）。上面第 1、2 节是按你描述的一致性判据给出的诉求写法——它不依赖我对代码的定位，因此即使我核错方向也不影响这条结论。

[Matthew-Laplace]

补充数据（原发帖人）：你要的三项，外加一处必须更正的表述

---

0. 先更正：不存在"空白 justification 文本"

没有任何代码路径会渲染出空白的 justification。拒绝时的报错是固定字面量，它从不回显取值；空白的是入参 justification，不是错误信息。

• 抛错点（0.2.0-rc.2 已安装 bundle）：dsh-sandbox/lib/index.js:54

  if (justification !== void 0 && justification.trim().length === 0) throw new Error("invalid justification: expected a non-empty sentence");

  （上游 master：packages/sandbox/sandbox/src/escalation.ts:58-60）
• Error: 前缀由工具层加：dsh-tools/lib/index.js:3616-3624

  function toolErrorResult(error) { … text: `Error: ${message}`, isError: true … }

• 全安装树里唯一出现 ${justification} 插值的地方是审批提示（dsh-sandbox/lib/index.js:109-112：reason: \escalate sandbox to ${mode}: ${justification}``），不是错误路径。

⇒ 结论：这不是"缺值 bug"，也不是"读错字段"，而是文案有意省略取值。所以「the error text with the blank justification」这个对象不存在；可以引用的是入参为空这一事实。

1. 你要的 (i)：上游 file + symbol + line（并附 0.2.0-rc.2 已安装 bundle 行号）

角色	上游 master 源码	0.2.0-rc.2 bundle
共享校验器 validateEscalationArgs	packages/sandbox/sandbox/src/escalation.ts:51	dsh-sandbox/lib/index.js:51-55
同模式 no-op approveEscalation	escalation.ts:173 if (mode === effectiveMode) return effectiveMode;	dsh-sandbox/lib/index.js:99-101
bash 的豁免 validateBashArgs（fn 在 :73）	packages/shell/tool-bash/src/index.ts:83 if (args.sandbox_permissions !== undefined && args.sandbox_permissions === effectiveMode) return；空串归一化 :84-86；校验 :87	dsh-tool-bash/lib/index.js:234-241（gate 在 :238）
write/edit 无豁免、先校验 resolvePolicy	packages/fs/tool-fs/src/sandbox.ts:87 fn、:88 第一句就是 validateEscalationArgs(args.sandbox_permissions, args.justification)，:89 才取 standing policy、:90 早返回	dsh-tool-fs/lib/index.js:1122-1125（validate 在 :1123）
write / edit 调用点	packages/fs/tool-fs/src/write.ts:115、edit.ts:121	dsh-tool-fs/lib/index.js:581 / :730
同样缺口	packages/shell/tool-pwsh/src/index.ts:118（validatePwshArgs 在 :106，根本没接 effectiveMode → Windows 上也一样）；packages/core/tools/src/ptc.ts:385	dsh-tool-pwsh/lib/index.js:252；dsh-tools/lib/index.js:1187、types/ptc.js:296

两边的具体差别就一句话：bash 在校验之前因为"同模式"直接 return；fs 无条件先校验，于是 "" 命中 dsh-sandbox:54，approveEscalation:101 那个"同模式免审批"的分支永远走不到。只有 bash 同时具备豁免与归一化。

附带一条你要的旁证：8cf9c0ed（2026-09-20，fix(bash): allow blank justification without escalation）的文件范围确实只限 packages/shell/tool-bash/** + snapshots/session/bash-same-mode-empty-justification/**。

测试覆盖差异也成立：

• packages/shell/tool-bash/tests/tools.spec.ts:783-799 明确测 undefined / '' / ' \t\n' + 同模式，断言 isError === false 且不触发审批；
• packages/fs/tool-fs/tests/tools.spec.ts:965 的同模式用例理由写死为非空（'use the current permissions'），空串分支从未被跑到。

2. 你要的 (ii)：原始调用与返回（逐字）

先更正一处：全盘 102 个 journal 里，edit + 空 justification 一次都没发生过（0 次）。原报告的 edit 那一行是共享 resolvePolicy 的代码对称性推断，不是观测；报告自己的正文也只写了「edit 带非空理由 1/1 成功」。请把 edit 标注为推断。

真实存在的原始记录（session 2d5ad092，工作区「网络环境」，mode/preset danger-full-access、审批策略 never；路径中的用户名与工作区绝对前缀已脱敏为 …）：

seq=1472 CALL   bash  {"command":"bash -n refresh.sh\nzsh -n '…/…watchdog.sh'","description":"Check refresh and Funnel watchdog shell syntax","justification":"","run_in_background":false,"sandbox_permissions":"danger-full-access","timeoutMs":10000,"workdir":"…"}
seq=1473 RESULT bash  isError=false  "(no output)"                                  ← 执行了
seq=1454 CALL   bash  {"command":"./refresh.sh --record","description":"Run fresh network probes and regenerate dashboard","justification":"","run_in_background":true,"sandbox_permissions":"danger-full-access",…}
seq=1455 RESULT bash  isError=false  "started background job bash-627"              ← 执行了
seq=989  CALL   write {"content":"<len=7666>","file_path":"…/records/20261004-…建议.md","justification":"","sandbox_permissions":"danger-full-access"}
seq=990  RESULT write isError=true   "Error: invalid justification: expected a non-empty sentence"   ← 被拒
seq=1503 CALL   write {"content":"<len=23729>","file_path":"…/records/20261004-…复现.py","justification":"","sandbox_permissions":"danger-full-access"}
seq=1504 RESULT write isError=true   "Error: invalid justification: expected a non-empty sentence"   ← 被拒

注意日志是多帧 zstd（该文件 893 帧）：node:zlib 的 zstdDecompressSync 只解第一帧（216 字节头），直接扫会误报"没有记录"。要按 0xFD2FB528 逐帧解，或用 python zstandard 的 read_across_frames=True。

我独立跨全部 journal 做的聚合（同一脚本、同一口径）：

分类	ok / err
bash same-mode + 空理由	72 / 0
write same-mode + 空理由	0 / 2
write same-mode + 非空理由	7 / 0
edit same-mode + 非空理由	22 / 1（那 1 条是无关错误：old_string 找不到）
edit same-mode + 空理由	0 次调用
write 空理由且不带 sandbox_permissions	0 / 1 → Error: invalid escalation: justification is only valid together with sandbox_permissions（bash 的 :239 归一化会让这种输入通过）

跨 102 个 journal / 8,618 次 tool/call（其中 138 次带 sandbox_permissions）：approval/request 事件 0 次 —— 即这条路径从未真正进入审批，只在参数校验就被拦下。

原报告自报的 42 / 21 / 19 / 2 / 0 / 1 是从一份部分导出里统计的，方向正确但已过时（同一会话现在 bash 同模式空理由是 65 次，全库 72 次）。

3. 你要的 (iii)：0.2.1-alpha.1 状态 —— 仍未修

包	rc.2 → alpha.1	结论
dsh-sandbox	空 diff（逐字节相同）	未改
dsh-tool-bash	只有参数顺序/描述文案；gate 仍在 lib/index.js:238	仍存在
dsh-tool-fs	只有描述文案；lib/index.js:1123 仍无条件先校验	仍存在
dsh-tool-pwsh	参数顺序/文案	仍存在
dsh-tools（run_code）	ptc.js:297、index.js:1187 未变	仍存在

四条 escalation 路径行为零变化，alpha 只调整了参数顺序与提示文案。另附口径更正：0.2.1-alpha.1 只挂在 npm 的 alpha tag（latest/next 仍是 0.2.0-rc.2）。

4. 额外一条：schema 层的不对称（模型为什么会这么调）

四个工具的 sandbox_permissions / justification 描述：

• fs（dsh-tool-fs/lib/index.js:1101、:1105）：sandboxPermissionsDescription("operation") + "Required with sandbox_permissions: one sentence for the user explaining why this exact file operation needs the wider access. …"
• bash（:517、:521）：同一 helper、换成 "command"，句子逐字相同；pwsh（:487、:491）同样。
• run_code（dsh-tools/lib/types/ptc.js:61-62）：措辞不同，但也写 "requires justification and approval"。

不对称在于"缺了一条"：三处 shell/fs 描述逐字相同、都声明理由 "Required"——而对 bash 来说这句是假的（同模式空理由会通过）；四个工具没有一个提到"重复当前模式无需理由"。这解释了模型为什么会习惯性带空理由。

5. 语义澄清（供你判断改动边界）

• 拒绝需要同时满足"同模式"且"理由为空"；同模式 + 非空理由在 write/edit 上是通过的（7 + 22 次、0 个相关错误）⇒ 所以 tool-fs/src/sandbox.ts:88 那一行是唯一障碍。
• sandbox_permissions 与 justification 恰好只给一个 → 按设计拒绝（正确，别改）。
• 严格更宽的模式 + 空理由 → 继续拒绝（正确，别改；tool-bash/tests/tools.spec.ts:741 已覆盖）。
• fs 自己的文档注释（dsh-tool-fs/lib/index.js:1112，"Repeating the standing mode requires no approval"）被它自己的 :1123 否掉了 —— 这条注释与 escalation.ts 的文档、以及那个"两个 enforcing family 校验一致"的注释都是过期表述。

6. 边界（未能确认的部分）

1. 本机没有做 live 复现：当前会话禁用 escalation 参数（审批提示全局关闭），所以 §1/§2 的结论基于静态代码 + 已存日志，没有现场重放。
2. edit 的行为是推断（0 条观测）。
3. 报告里"已在 master 验证"这一点：我核到的 5 个 master 行号全部正确，但那是"行号与源码一致"，不是"我确认你当时跑过"。
4. app.asar 是单个 121 MB 归档文件（不是目录），但可按字节搜索，缺陷三行在其中各出现一次；其 runtime.json 的 desktopVersion = 0.2.0-rc.2。
5. 0.2.1-alpha.1 是从哪个 commit 构建的未确认（我只比对了已发布的 alpha 包与 master 源码中引用的表达式）。

附：复核命令（可自行跑）

# 共享校验器与报错文案
grep -n 'invalid justification' <install>/node_modules/@deepseek-ai/dsh-sandbox/lib/index.js
# bash 的同模式豁免
grep -n 'effectiveMode' <install>/node_modules/@deepseek-ai/dsh-tool-bash/lib/index.js
# fs 的无条件校验
grep -n 'validateEscalationArgs' <install>/node_modules/@deepseek-ai/dsh-tool-fs/lib/index.js
# 版本一致性
npm pack @deepseek-ai/dsh-sandbox@0.2.1-alpha.1 && diff <(tar xzOf *.tgz package/lib/index.js) <install>/…/dsh-sandbox/lib/index.js

[Matthew-Laplace]

Supplementary data (original reporter) — English version

English version of my earlier comment. One framing correction first, because it changes what the reviewer should look for.

---

0. There is no "blank justification text"

No code path can render a blank justification. The rejection is a fixed literal that never echoes the value; what is blank is the input argument.

• Throw site (installed 0.2.0-rc.2 bundle): dsh-sandbox/lib/index.js:54

  if (justification !== void 0 && justification.trim().length === 0) throw new Error("invalid justification: expected a non-empty sentence");

  Upstream master: packages/sandbox/sandbox/src/escalation.ts:58-60.
• The Error: prefix is added by the tool layer: dsh-tools/lib/index.js:3616-3624

  function toolErrorResult(error) { … text: `Error: ${message}`, isError: true … }

• The only ${justification} interpolations in the whole installed tree are the approval prompt (dsh-sandbox/lib/index.js:109-112, reason: \escalate sandbox to ${mode}: ${justification}``) — not an error path.

⇒ Verdict: not a missing-value bug, not a wrong-field read — the message deliberately omits the value. The object "the error text with the blank justification" does not exist.

1. Reviewer ask (i): upstream file + symbol + line (with the shipped-bundle line for each)

Role	Upstream master source	0.2.0-rc.2 bundle
shared validator validateEscalationArgs	packages/sandbox/sandbox/src/escalation.ts:51	dsh-sandbox/lib/index.js:51-55
same-mode no-op in approveEscalation	escalation.ts:173 if (mode === effectiveMode) return effectiveMode;	dsh-sandbox/lib/index.js:99-101
bash exemption validateBashArgs (fn at :73)	packages/shell/tool-bash/src/index.ts:83 if (args.sandbox_permissions !== undefined && args.sandbox_permissions === effectiveMode) return; blank normalization :84-86; validate :87	dsh-tool-bash/lib/index.js:234-241 (gate at :238)
write/edit: no exemption, validate first resolvePolicy	packages/fs/tool-fs/src/sandbox.ts:87 fn, :88 first statement validateEscalationArgs(args.sandbox_permissions, args.justification), :89 standing policy, :90 early return	dsh-tool-fs/lib/index.js:1122-1125 (validate at :1123)
write / edit call sites	packages/fs/tool-fs/src/write.ts:115, edit.ts:121	dsh-tool-fs/lib/index.js:581 / :730
same gap	packages/shell/tool-pwsh/src/index.ts:118 (validatePwshArgs at :106 does not even take effectiveMode ⇒ Windows affected too); packages/core/tools/src/ptc.ts:385 (run_code)	dsh-tool-pwsh/lib/index.js:252; dsh-tools/lib/index.js:1187, types/ptc.js:296

The concrete difference, in one sentence: bash returns before validation when the request repeats the current mode; the fs family validates unconditionally, so "" hits dsh-sandbox:54 and the "same mode needs no approval" branch at approveEscalation:101 is never reached. Only bash carries both the exemption and the blank-string normalization.

Corroboration: commit 8cf9c0ed (2026-09-20, fix(bash): allow blank justification without escalation) is real and its file list is limited to packages/shell/tool-bash/** + snapshots/session/bash-same-mode-empty-justification/**.

Test-coverage gap also holds:

• packages/shell/tool-bash/tests/tools.spec.ts:783-799 explicitly tests undefined / '' / ' \t\n' for a same-mode request, asserting isError === false and no approval prompt;
• packages/fs/tool-fs/tests/tools.spec.ts:965 does have a same-mode case, but with a hard-coded non-empty reason ('use the current permissions'), so the blank branch is never exercised.

2. Reviewer ask (ii): the raw calls and responses

One correction first: an exhaustive scan of all 102 session journals finds zero edit calls with a blank justification. The edit row in the report is code-symmetry inference from the shared resolvePolicy, never an observation — the report's own body only claims "edit with a non-empty reason: 1/1 succeeded". Please label edit as inference.

The calls that do exist (session 2d5ad092, workspace "网络环境", standing mode danger-full-access, approval policy never; absolute user/workspace path prefixes replaced with …):

seq=1472 CALL   bash  {"command":"bash -n refresh.sh\nzsh -n '…/…watchdog.sh'","description":"Check refresh and Funnel watchdog shell syntax","justification":"","run_in_background":false,"sandbox_permissions":"danger-full-access","timeoutMs":10000,"workdir":"…"}
seq=1473 RESULT bash  isError=false  "(no output)"                                    ← ran
seq=1454 CALL   bash  {"command":"./refresh.sh --record","description":"Run fresh network probes and regenerate dashboard","justification":"","run_in_background":true,"sandbox_permissions":"danger-full-access",…}
seq=1455 RESULT bash  isError=false  "started background job bash-627"                ← ran
seq=989  CALL   write {"content":"<len=7666>","file_path":"…/records/…优化建议.md","justification":"","sandbox_permissions":"danger-full-access"}
seq=990  RESULT write isError=true   "Error: invalid justification: expected a non-empty sentence"   ← rejected
seq=1503 CALL   write {"content":"<len=23729>","file_path":"…/records/…复现.py","justification":"","sandbox_permissions":"danger-full-access"}
seq=1504 RESULT write isError=true   "Error: invalid justification: expected a non-empty sentence"   ← rejected

Aggregated by me, independently, across every journal:

Category	ok / err
bash same-mode + blank reason	72 / 0
write same-mode + blank reason	0 / 2
write same-mode + non-empty reason	7 / 0
edit same-mode + non-empty reason	22 / 1 (the 1 is unrelated: old_string not found)
edit same-mode + blank reason	0 calls
write, blank reason, no sandbox_permissions	0 / 1 → Error: invalid escalation: justification is only valid together with sandbox_permissions (bash's :239 normalization turns this input into a pass)

Across 8,618 tool/call records (138 carrying sandbox_permissions) there are 0 approval/request events — the path never reaches approval; it is stopped at argument validation.

The report's own figures (42 / 21 / 19 / 2 / 0 / 1) come from a partial export of that session; the direction is right but the numbers are stale (bash same-mode+blank is now 65 in that session, 72 overall).

Journal format note: these files are multi-frame zstd (893 frames in that one). node:zlib's zstdDecompressSync decodes only the first frame when called naively (a 216-byte header), which makes naive scans report zero records. Walk frames by magic 0xFD2FB528, or use python zstandard's stream_reader(..., read_across_frames=True).

3. Reviewer ask (iii): 0.2.1-alpha.1 — still present

Package	rc.2 → alpha.1	Status
dsh-sandbox	empty diff (byte-identical)	unchanged
dsh-tool-bash	parameter order / description text only; gate still at lib/index.js:238	present
dsh-tool-fs	descriptions only; lib/index.js:1123 still validates first	present
dsh-tool-pwsh	parameter order / text	present
dsh-tools (run_code)	ptc.js:297, index.js:1187 unchanged	present

All four escalation paths are behaviourally unchanged in the alpha; only parameter ordering and prompt text moved. Tag note: 0.2.1-alpha.1 is on the npm alpha tag (latest/next are 0.2.0-rc.2).

4. Extra: the schema-level asymmetry (why the model calls it this way)

• fs (dsh-tool-fs/lib/index.js:1101, :1105): sandboxPermissionsDescription("operation") + "Required with sandbox_permissions: one sentence for the user explaining why this exact file operation needs the wider access. …"
• bash (:517, :521): the same helper with "command", the same sentence verbatim; pwsh (:487, :491) likewise.
• run_code (dsh-tools/lib/types/ptc.js:61-62): different wording, but also says the reason is required.

The asymmetry is an absence: the three shell/fs descriptions are word-for-word identical modulo the noun and all declare the reason "Required" — which is false for bash — and none of the four mentions the same-mode no-op rule.

5. Semantics (useful for scoping the fix)

• Rejection requires both same-mode and a blank reason. Same-mode with a non-empty reason is accepted on write/edit (7 + 22 calls, 0 related errors) ⇒ tool-fs/src/sandbox.ts:88 is the only obstacle.
• Exactly one of sandbox_permissions / justification supplied → reject (correct today, do not change).
• A strictly wider mode with a blank reason → keep rejecting (correct today; tool-bash/tests/tools.spec.ts:741 covers it).
• The fs file's own doc comment (dsh-tool-fs/lib/index.js:1112, "Repeating the standing mode requires no approval") is contradicted by its own :1123; the same goes for the comment claiming both enforcing families validate identically. Both are stale.

6. Bounds / what I could not confirm

1. No live re-run. Approval prompts are disabled in the environment where I gathered this and escalation arguments are refused, so §1/§2 rest on static code plus stored transcripts.
2. edit behaviour is inference (0 observations).
3. The report's "verified on master": all five cited upstream line numbers are exact, but that is "the lines match the source", not "I confirmed the run happened".
4. app.asar is a single 121 MB archive file, not a directory (the path app.asar/dsh/ does not exist as a directory); it is byte-searchable and contains each defect line exactly once. Its runtime.json reports desktopVersion: 0.2.0-rc.2.
5. Which commit 0.2.1-alpha.1 was built from is not established (I compared the published alpha packages against the expressions cited in master).

Re-verification commands

grep -n 'invalid justification' <install>/node_modules/@deepseek-ai/dsh-sandbox/lib/index.js
grep -n 'effectiveMode'        <install>/node_modules/@deepseek-ai/dsh-tool-bash/lib/index.js
grep -n 'validateEscalationArgs' <install>/node_modules/@deepseek-ai/dsh-tool-fs/lib/index.js
npm pack @deepseek-ai/dsh-sandbox@0.2.1-alpha.1 && diff <(tar xzOf *.tgz package/lib/index.js) <install>/…/dsh-sandbox/lib/index.js

[PerryLink]

你的更正我接受——"空白 justification"这句是我说错了

1. 撤回

我上一轮写"空 justification 的拒绝比有理由的拒绝更糟"，隐含"错误信息是空白的"。你核到的恰恰相反：

// 抛错点（0.2.0-rc.2 bundle）
//   dsh-sandbox/lib/index.js:54
// 上游 master：packages/sandbox/sandbox/src/escalation.ts:58-60
if (justification !== void 0 && justification.trim().length === 0)
  throw new Error("invalid justification: expected a non-empty sentence")

⇒ 错误信息是固定字面量、且它说清了缺什么（"expected a non-empty sentence"）；空白的是入参 justification，不是错误文本；Error: 前缀由工具层加（dsh-tools/lib/index.js:3616-3624）。⇒ 所以"错误信息不可操作"这一条不成立，我撤回。 谢谢你把这个区分做出来——它把这条的矛头从我指错的方向挪回了正确方向。

2. ⇒ 修正后，这条真正的问题是两个（都不在文案上）

1. 为什么"重复当前模式"这件事需要一个理由？
   会话已经是该模式，再声明一次不改变任何状态。⇒ 要求为它写 justification，本身就是多余的；跨工具不一致（bash 接受）只是这个多余要求的副产物。
2. 为什么入参是空的？
   既然错误文本正确，那空白说明调用方（模型）传了 justification: "" ⇒ 这是第二个问题：工具描述/schema 是否让模型知道"这个字段在什么情况下必填"？ 若描述没说清，模型只能试错。

3. 建议的诉求（改后版本，三条）

1. 请求等于当前模式 ⇒ no-op（直接通过，不要求 justification）；这条同时消掉工具间差异；
2. 若确实需要理由（例如提升到更高权限时）⇒ 在 schema/工具描述里写清"何时必填"，而不是在执行期才拒绝；
3. 若仍拒绝 ⇒ 错误里带上期望的形态（现有文案已经做到了"说清缺什么"，可再补"为什么这次需要"）。

第 1 条仍是核心，但理由换了：不是"文案不好"，而是"这个要求本身不必要"。

4. 你补的三项我逐条收下

• 抛错点（dsh-sandbox 的 :54 + 上游 escalation.ts:58-60）；
• 前缀来源（工具层的 toolErrorResult，dsh-tools）：这条很有用——它解释了"为什么看起来像工具自己报的错"，建议保留在报告里；
• "全安装树里唯一出现 ${justification} 的位置"：这种"我确认过只有这一处"的排他性证据，是这类报告最缺的，请保留。

5. 请补一样

三次调用的入参原文（write / edit / bash 各自的 sandbox_permissions 与 justification）——你上一轮答应给的三项里这是第一项，而现在它更关键了：它能证明"入参确实为空"，从而把第 2 节那个问题（模型不知道该填）落实。

6. 版本

你写 0.2.0-rc.2；⚠️ 当前最新是 0.2.1-alpha.1。请确认 escalation.ts 在新版是否仍是这个判断（我未核这一处）。

一条边界

我确认的是你的更正方向成立（错误文本是固定字面量、空白的是入参）这一结论与给定代码一致。write/edit/bash 三处的校验是否共用同一实现，需要你补第 5 节的入参原文才能定论。

[Matthew-Laplace]

回复：你要的三次调用入参（其实只有两条）+ 版本确认

1. 入参原文：edit + 空理由在全库 0 次观测

你第 5 节要的"三次调用入参原文"，我已经在 discussioncomment-18752917 里给过。关键结论先说：不存在"三次" —— 扫描全部 102 个会话 journal / 8,618 条 tool/call（其中 138 条带 sandbox_permissions），edit + justification: "" 0 条。原报告里 edit 那一行是共享 resolvePolicy 的代码对称性推断，报告自己的正文也只写了"edit 带非空理由 1/1 成功"。

真实存在的入参（session 2d5ad092，工作区「网络环境」，standing mode danger-full-access、审批策略 never；路径前缀以 … 脱敏）：

seq=1472 bash  {"command":"bash -n refresh.sh\nzsh -n '…/…watchdog.sh'","description":"Check refresh and Funnel watchdog shell syntax","justification":"","run_in_background":false,"sandbox_permissions":"danger-full-access","timeoutMs":10000,"workdir":"…"}
        → isError=false  "(no output)"
seq=1454 bash  {"command":"./refresh.sh --record","description":"Run fresh network probes and regenerate dashboard","justification":"","run_in_background":true,"sandbox_permissions":"danger-full-access",…}
        → isError=false  "started background job bash-627"
seq=989  write {"content":"<len=7666>","file_path":"…/records/…优化建议.md","justification":"","sandbox_permissions":"danger-full-access"}
        → isError=true   "Error: invalid justification: expected a non-empty sentence"
seq=1503 write {"content":"<len=23729>","file_path":"…/records/…复现.py","justification":"","sandbox_permissions":"danger-full-access"}
        → isError=true   "Error: invalid justification: expected a non-empty sentence"

这说明：空白确实来自入参（模型传了 justification: ""），不是错误文本的问题——与你第 2 节的判断一致。

2. 你第 6 节的版本问题：已核，仍是同一个判断

• @deepseek-ai/dsh-sandbox@0.2.1-alpha.1 与本机 0.2.0-rc.2 的 lib/index.js 逐字节相同（空 diff）⇒ packages/sandbox/sandbox/src/escalation.ts:58-60 那条判断在新版未变。
• @deepseek-ai/dsh-tool-fs@0.2.1-alpha.1 仍是无条件先校验（lib/index.js:1123）；dsh-tool-bash 的 same-mode gate 仍在 lib/index.js:238。
• 四条 escalation 路径在 alpha 上行为零变化，只有参数顺序与提示文案变了。

3. 你改后的两个问题，入参原文正好能回答

(a) 为什么"重复当前模式"需要理由？ 代码上"同模式 no-op"只存在两处：dsh-sandbox/lib/index.js:101（approveEscalation，if (mode === effectiveMode) return effectiveMode）与 dsh-tool-bash/lib/index.js:238。而 fs 家族在 dsh-tool-fs/lib/index.js:1123 无条件先校验，所以 :101 那个分支在空理由时不可达。你说的"这个要求本身不必要、跨工具不一致只是副产物"成立。

(b) 为什么模型会传空？ 这是 schema 层的证据：四处对 justification 的描述逐字相同且都声明 "Required"——

• dsh-tool-fs/lib/index.js:1101、:1105
• dsh-tool-bash/lib/index.js:517、:521
• dsh-tool-pwsh/lib/index.js:487、:491
• dsh-tools/lib/types/ptc.js:61-62（措辞不同，但也写 requires justification）

而没有一处提到"重复当前模式无需理由"。对 bash 而言那句 "Required" 是假的。⇒ 模型只知道"这字段必填"，不知道"何时不必填"，于是要么猜、要么试错——这正是你第 2 节第 2 个问题的直接证据。建议把它写进诉求第 2 条（schema 里写清何时必填，或干脆在 no-op 情形下不要求）。

4. 边界

edit 的行为仍是推断（0 条观测）；bash 同模式空理由在该会话是 65/65 通过，全库是 72/72。app.asar 是单个 121 MB 归档文件（不是目录），缺陷语句在其中各出现一次。

---

Reply: the raw call arguments you asked for (there are only two, not three) + version check

1. Raw arguments: edit with a blank reason is observed zero times

You asked in §5 for the three raw call arguments; I posted them in discussioncomment-18752917. The headline: there is no "three" — scanning all 102 session journals / 8,618 tool/call records (138 carrying sandbox_permissions), edit with justification: "" appears 0 times. The edit row in the report is code-symmetry inference from the shared resolvePolicy; the report's own body only claims "edit with a non-empty reason: 1/1 succeeded".

The calls that exist (session 2d5ad092, standing mode danger-full-access, approval policy never; path prefixes redacted to …):

seq=1472 bash  {"command":"bash -n refresh.sh\nzsh -n '…/…watchdog.sh'","description":"Check refresh and Funnel watchdog shell syntax","justification":"","run_in_background":false,"sandbox_permissions":"danger-full-access","timeoutMs":10000,"workdir":"…"}
        → isError=false  "(no output)"
seq=1454 bash  {"command":"./refresh.sh --record","description":"Run fresh network probes and regenerate dashboard","justification":"","run_in_background":true,"sandbox_permissions":"danger-full-access",…}
        → isError=false  "started background job bash-627"
seq=989  write {"content":"<len=7666>","file_path":"…/records/….md","justification":"","sandbox_permissions":"danger-full-access"}
        → isError=true   "Error: invalid justification: expected a non-empty sentence"
seq=1503 write {"content":"<len=23729>","file_path":"…/records/….py","justification":"","sandbox_permissions":"danger-full-access"}
        → isError=true   "Error: invalid justification: expected a non-empty sentence"

So the blank genuinely comes from the input argument (the model sent justification: ""), not from the error text — matching your §2 conclusion.

2. Your §6 version question: checked, the same check is still there

• @deepseek-ai/dsh-sandbox@0.2.1-alpha.1's lib/index.js is byte-identical to the installed 0.2.0-rc.2 (empty diff) ⇒ packages/sandbox/sandbox/src/escalation.ts:58-60 is unchanged in the new version.
• @deepseek-ai/dsh-tool-fs@0.2.1-alpha.1 still validates unconditionally first (lib/index.js:1123); dsh-tool-bash's same-mode gate is still at lib/index.js:238.
• All four escalation paths are behaviourally unchanged in the alpha; only parameter order and prompt text moved.

3. Your two revised questions are answered by the raw arguments

(a) Why does repeating the current mode need a reason at all? The same-mode no-op exists in exactly two places — dsh-sandbox/lib/index.js:101 (approveEscalation, if (mode === effectiveMode) return effectiveMode) and dsh-tool-bash/lib/index.js:238. The fs family validates unconditionally at dsh-tool-fs/lib/index.js:1123 first, so :101 is unreachable for a blank reason. Your "the requirement itself is unnecessary; the cross-tool inconsistency is a by-product" reading holds.

(b) Why is the argument blank? Here is the schema-level evidence: all four descriptions of justification are word-for-word identical and all declare it "Required" —

• dsh-tool-fs/lib/index.js:1101, :1105
• dsh-tool-bash/lib/index.js:517, :521
• dsh-tool-pwsh/lib/index.js:487, :491
• dsh-tools/lib/types/ptc.js:61-62 (different wording, but also says the reason is required)

and none of them mentions that repeating the current mode needs no reason. For bash that "Required" is false. ⇒ The model knows the field is required but not when it is not — which is exactly the mechanism behind your second question. Worth folding into ask #2 (state in the schema when it is required, or stop requiring it in the no-op case).

4. Bounds

edit remains inference (0 observations). Bash same-mode + blank reason is 65/65 in that session, 72/72 across all journals. app.asar is a single 121 MB archive file (not a directory); the defect lines appear in it exactly once each.