Feat: request user input tool #9472

shijie-oai · 2026-01-19T06:07:37Z

Summary

Add requestUserInput tool that the model can use for gather feedback/asking question mid turn.

Tool input schema

{
  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
  "title": "requestUserInput input",
  "type": "object",
  "additionalProperties": false,
  "required": ["questions"],
  "properties": {
    "questions": {
      "type": "array",
      "description": "Questions to show the user (1-3). Prefer 1 unless multiple independent decisions block progress.",
      "minItems": 1,
      "maxItems": 3,
      "items": {
        "type": "object",
        "additionalProperties": false,
        "required": ["id", "header", "question"],
        "properties": {
          "id": {
            "type": "string",
            "description": "Stable identifier for mapping answers (snake_case)."
          },
          "header": {
            "type": "string",
            "description": "Short header label shown in the UI (12 or fewer chars)."
          },
          "question": {
            "type": "string",
            "description": "Single-sentence prompt shown to the user."
          },
          "options": {
            "type": "array",
            "description": "Optional 2-3 mutually exclusive choices. Put the recommended option first and suffix its label with \"(Recommended)\". Only include \"Other\" option if we want to include a free form option. If the question is free form in nature, do not include any option.",
            "minItems": 2,
            "maxItems": 3,
            "items": {
              "type": "object",
              "additionalProperties": false,
              "required": ["value", "label", "description"],
              "properties": {
                "value": {
                  "type": "string",
                  "description": "Machine-readable value (snake_case)."
                },
                "label": {
                  "type": "string",
                  "description": "User-facing label (1-5 words)."
                },
                "description": {
                  "type": "string",
                  "description": "One short sentence explaining impact/tradeoff if selected."
                }
              }
            }
          }
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Tool output schema

{
  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
  "title": "requestUserInput output",
  "type": "object",
  "additionalProperties": false,
  "required": ["answers"],
  "properties": {
    "answers": {
      "type": "object",
      "description": "Map of question id to user answer.",
      "additionalProperties": {
        "type": "object",
        "additionalProperties": false,
        "required": ["selected"],
        "properties": {
          "selected": {
            "type": "array",
            "items": { "type": "string" }
          },
          "other": {
            "type": ["string", "null"]
          }
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

shijie-oai · 2026-01-19T06:25:46Z

codex-rs/core/src/tools/spec.rs

            apply_patch_tool_type,
            web_search_mode: *web_search_mode,
            collab_tools: include_collab_tools,
+            collaboration_modes_tools: include_collaboration_modes_tools,


We would only make the tool available after collaboration mode is enabled.

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: c1bcdcf854

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

Open a pull request for review
Mark a draft as ready
Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-01-19T07:10:48Z

codex-rs/app-server-protocol/src/protocol/v2.rs

+pub struct ToolRequestUserInputQuestion {
+    pub id: String,
+    pub header: String,
+    pub question: String,
+    pub options: Option<Vec<ToolRequestUserInputOption>>,


Omit options when absent to avoid null payloads

When a question is free-form (no choices), options is None but it will still serialize as "options": null because the field lacks #[serde(skip_serializing_if = "Option::is_none")]. The request schema and UI logic treat options as an array when present, so null can break JSON-schema validation or any client code that assumes options is iterable. This only impacts questions without options, but it will cause those requests to be rejected or crash UI renderers unless they special‑case null.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

aibrahim-oai · 2026-01-19T07:19:28Z

@codex review this by comparing it with approvals feature because it blocks also on user response. Mention any missing features, safeguards, or differences between those two implementations.

codex-rs/app-server-protocol/src/protocol/common.rs

codex-rs/app-server-protocol/src/protocol/v2.rs

codex-rs/app-server/README.md

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: d74863cb6f

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

Open a pull request for review
Mark a draft as ready
Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-01-19T07:24:06Z

codex-rs/tui/src/chatwidget.rs

+            | EventMsg::ReasoningRawContentDelta(_)
+            | EventMsg::RequestUserInput(_) => {}


Surface request_user_input in TUI instead of ignoring

Unlike exec/file-change approvals, RequestUserInput events are currently dropped in the TUI event loop, so there is no prompt and no way to send Op::RequestUserInputResponse. If the model calls request_user_input (now listed in the toolset when collaboration modes are enabled), the tool call will wait indefinitely and the turn never completes. Approvals have an explicit modal/interrupt path; this new blocking request needs an equivalent UI/response path or should be gated off for TUI clients.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-01-19T07:24:06Z

codex-rs/app-server/src/bespoke_event_handling.rs

+        Err(err) => {
+            error!("request failed: {err:?}");
+            let empty = CoreRequestUserInputResponse {
+                answers: HashMap::new(),
+            };


Treat failed user-input requests as cancel/error

The app-server handler synthesizes an empty answers map when the request fails (and also when deserialization fails just below), then submits it as a valid RequestUserInputResponse. In contrast, approvals default to a decline/abort on failure, which prevents actions from proceeding without explicit user input. Returning empty answers here lets the model continue as if the user responded, which can skip required confirmations or choices. Consider returning an error/cancel outcome (or at least a failure flag) instead of silently fabricating an empty response.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

codex-rs/core/src/codex.rs

aibrahim-oai · 2026-01-19T07:28:12Z

codex-rs/core/src/tools/spec.rs

    builder.register_handler("update_plan", plan_handler);

+    if config.collaboration_modes_tools {
+        builder.push_spec(create_request_user_input_tool());


I think we can do push_spec_with_parallel_support

We do want to block on interaction right? haven't 100% looked into the parallel support yet but that would meant mutple process can all trigger userInput requests?

I think clients should be able to handle that but ok let's not risk it

aibrahim-oai

LGTM

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 4b15d0e581

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

Open a pull request for review
Mark a draft as ready
Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-01-19T08:37:23Z

codex-rs/mcp-server/src/codex_tool_runner.rs

                    | EventMsg::ExitedReviewMode(_)
+                    | EventMsg::RequestUserInput(_)
                    | EventMsg::ContextCompacted(_)


Handle request_user_input in MCP tool runner

When collaboration_modes is enabled and the model calls request_user_input, the core handler blocks waiting for an Op::RequestUserInputResponse. In the MCP tool runner this event is explicitly dropped, so the MCP tools/call session will stall indefinitely after emitting the notification because no response is ever sent back to Codex. This only triggers when the experimental tool is enabled and used, but in that case the tool call never completes. Consider plumbing a request/response path similar to exec approvals or disabling the tool in MCP sessions.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-01-19T08:37:23Z

codex-rs/exec/src/event_processor_with_human_output.rs

            | EventMsg::SkillsUpdateAvailable
            | EventMsg::UndoCompleted(_)
            | EventMsg::UndoStarted(_)
-            | EventMsg::ThreadRolledBack(_) => {}
+            | EventMsg::ThreadRolledBack(_)
+            | EventMsg::RequestUserInput(_) => {}


Surface request_user_input in CLI event processor

The CLI human-output event processor currently drops RequestUserInput events. If collaboration_modes is enabled and the model invokes request_user_input, no prompt is shown and no Op::RequestUserInputResponse can be sent, so the turn will hang waiting on the pending user-input future. This is only hit when the experimental tool is advertised, but it makes the feature unusable in the CLI path until a prompt/response flow is added or the tool is gated off.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 0542051958

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

Open a pull request for review
Mark a draft as ready
Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-01-19T17:27:55Z

codex-rs/core/src/codex_delegate.rs

+    let args = RequestUserInputArgs {
+        questions: event.questions,
+    };
+    let response_fut =
+        parent_session.request_user_input(parent_ctx, parent_ctx.sub_id.clone(), args);


Preserve tool call id when forwarding user input

The delegated handler forwards request_user_input to the parent session using parent_ctx.sub_id as the call_id, which discards the actual tool call id (event.call_id). In collaboration mode, if a delegated agent triggers more than one request_user_input in the same parent turn, each parent-side prompt will share the same item_id and can overwrite/merge in clients that key on item_id, making prompts indistinguishable and responses potentially mapped to the wrong tool call. Use the incoming event.call_id when calling request_user_input so item ids remain unique per tool call.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-01-19T17:27:55Z

codex-rs/tui2/src/chatwidget.rs

            | EventMsg::ItemCompleted(_)
            | EventMsg::AgentMessageContentDelta(_)
            | EventMsg::ReasoningContentDelta(_)
-            | EventMsg::ReasoningRawContentDelta(_) => {}
+            | EventMsg::ReasoningRawContentDelta(_)
+            | EventMsg::RequestUserInput(_) => {}


Surface request_user_input in TUI2 event loop

The TUI2 chat widget explicitly drops EventMsg::RequestUserInput, so when collaboration modes expose the request_user_input tool and the model calls it, the UI never prompts the user and never sends Op::UserInputAnswer. The tool call future in core will remain pending, so the turn hangs until interrupted. This only affects sessions using the TUI2 frontend and when the tool is invoked, but in those cases the conversation can’t complete.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

shijie-oai commented Jan 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

shijie-oai force-pushed the shijie/request-user-input-tool-only branch 2 times, most recently from d16baca to c1bcdcf Compare January 19, 2026 07:03

shijie-oai marked this pull request as ready for review January 19, 2026 07:03

shijie-oai requested review from aibrahim-oai and dylan-hurd-oai January 19, 2026 07:03

shijie-oai force-pushed the shijie/request-user-input-tool-only branch from c1bcdcf to d74863c Compare January 19, 2026 07:06

chatgpt-codex-connector bot reviewed Jan 19, 2026

View reviewed changes