是否可以给dsh的删除加个回收站之类的概念

[YANGSROOT]

昨天deepseek加dsh把我整个项目文件夹删了，他执行代码，删除测试文件的时候，经典的路径拼错了，包含了上级文件夹，甚至没有创建测试文件夹，把整个文件夹删了。
整个项目没有备份，已经全毁了，full权限下是否可以加个放到一个临时文件夹的回收站的删除。
我现在已经通过插件的形式实现了。
为了安全，即便被ai误删，也可以恢复，而不是通过fs 命令行直接删除

[oldzhang82]

我也踩过这个坑，这个坑和大模型还有dsh都没关系的。因为删除命令是写脚本执行的，不是大模型或者dsh执行的。
解决手段是写一个删除skill，要求大模型的删除命令是用“软删”的方式，先把需删除文件移至制定文件夹，然后再设定指定文件夹里的文件48小时后自动硬删。

[YANGSROOT]

昨天那个原因，是ptc模式下通过nodejs加fs实现的删除。
甚至还没用命令行……

[oldzhang82]

是这样的，agent执行任务的手，其实是脚本，误删通常发生在清理废弃脚本的时候。
其实不用太纠结什么情况下发生的误删，误删可能发生在任何情况下。
非要分责任的话，通常是大模型错误输出导致的。

[argszero]

A recycle bin is the right layer for this, and the layer matters: a mistyped path that swallows the parent directory is a target-identification error, and no rule that reads the command text can decide whether the target was meant. Your case (the classic "the test directory didn't exist, so the deletion took the folder above it") is exactly the one a text guard cannot reach.

For completeness, because this class keeps being reported in both directions: the npm package @argszero/dsh-destructive-command-guard takes the denial side at the other end of the same problem. It refuses a shell command before it runs, at tools/pre-execute, when a recursive or forced deletion's operand is a home reference ($HOME, $home, ~, $env:USERPROFILE) or a filesystem root, or when a read-only automatic variable collides with a name just assigned — the #9173 case, where $home = "C:\..." fails as a non-terminating error and the very next line deletes the real profile. Its rules are deliberately narrow facts about the text, and it would not have caught your deletion either: a literal mistyped path is not a home reference and not a root, and denying every recursive delete whose operand is a variable would have refused the legitimate cleanup calls in the same session (see #9415 for a session where the same wipe-and-rebuild idiom was correct three times and fatal the fourth).

So the two contributions do not overlap, which is the useful part: a guard can only refuse, and it can only refuse what the text proves; a recycle bin preserves what nothing could have judged. If your plugin routes deletions to a temporary store and restores on demand, that is the recovery layer that a deny rule cannot provide — the guard's honest boundary is that when the target is genuinely misidentified, there is nothing to pattern-match, and only a reversible delete helps.

Two notes that may be useful to whoever takes this upstream: the shipped tool description already requires verifying the resolved absolute path before a delete (@deepseek-ai/dsh-tool-pwsh states it verbatim), so the requirement exists and only the enforcement is missing; and under a full-access/auto-review preset nothing asks before the command runs, which makes the filesystem layer the only one still in play.

[whengu]

其实你说的功能就是git, 不需要dsh再重复做这种功能, 安装个git用git管理就行了, git回收站好用一万倍, 然后再用git worktree就更好了

[YANGSROOT]

有没有可能把我的上级文件夹删除了？工作文件夹.git的上级文件夹都误删除了

[lgzzzz]

不要随便开完全权限, 风险很高的.