fix(cli): make --llms-full complete and accurate - #474
Conversation
|
@codex review |
|
Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Nice work! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
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[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 5789da8956
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".
|
@codex review |
|
Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: d2e63a0a1d
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".
| INCUR_VALUE_OPTIONS.has(argument) && | ||
| argv[index + 1] !== undefined |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When an accepted equals-form global option precedes the command path, such as codex-security --filter-output=scan scans show --llms-full, this exact lookup does not consume it. renderFullMarkdownManifest consequently treats the option as the first command argument and leaves the scope empty, producing a root heading and root operating guide even though Incur selected only scans show; handle equals forms for --filter-output, --token-limit, and --token-offset before deriving the scope.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| if (options && property.type === "array") { | ||
| details.push("Repeat this flag for multiple values."); | ||
| if (Array.isArray(property.default)) { | ||
| details.push(`Default: ${codeValue(property.default)}.`); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Every repeatable option such as --path, --knowledge-base, and --codex is an array whose string items have a minimum length, but Zod places that constraint under property.items and this branch only describes repetition and the outer default. Because Incur does not render these constraints itself, the full manifest omits that empty repeated values are rejected; include applicable item-level constraints when documenting arrays.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
…/codex/fix-llms-full-manifest
|
@codex review Please review the current head, |
|
Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 59ae515c1f
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".
| { commands: [{ name: command }] }, | ||
| [command], | ||
| ); | ||
| expect(scoped).toMatch(/--filter-output.*only to command results/u); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The latest commit reintroduces an assertion on exact generated English by requiring the words “only to command results,” so a harmless copy edit will fail this test even when filtering behavior and documented restrictions remain correct. Assert a stable semantic property or source-of-truth value instead; this is fresh evidence after the earlier wording assertions were removed.
AGENTS.md reference: sdk/typescript/AGENTS.md:L29-L32
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
|
@codex review Please review the current head, |
|
Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Nice work! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
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". |
1 participant
Summary
Make
--llms-fulla complete reference for the installed CLI. Incur's Markdown renderer exposed camel-case schema keys as flags and omitted required-option markers, allowed values, and validation constraints. Command-specific output checks also prevented some documentation requests from reaching the renderer.Changes
Testing
6bfcdbb6: 187 passed.beedc8ee, Bun 1.3.14,--no-env-file, and seed12345: 1,307 passed, 11 skipped, zero failures. Live integrations and machine-policy opt-ins were disabled; inherited credential, state, and runtime overrides were removed.check:package, and standalonetest:package: passed. The package check validated 222 archive entries and the installed CLI, including the actual nested worker without a global Codex installation. The archive is byte-identical to the previous published-head archive because the follow-up changes only a test assertion.0ce81229: 1,304 passed, 11 skipped, zero failures.pnpm run types,pnpm run format, andgit diff --check: passed.beedc8eefound no remaining blocking or advisory findings. Exact-head local full/package validation is complete; fresh pushed-head standard/cross-platform CI remains required before merge.Risk and rollout
The change adapts Markdown discovery, shares existing result-output policy, and retains Incur's live parser schemas and argument semantics. Persisted scan state and publication behavior are unchanged. Framework failures reuse the existing safe error renderer and trusted schema constraints. The installed-package nested-worker check remains intact. A prior Windows Node 24 verifier hit its worker-startup timer; the same helper passed on recorded main and on the PR's Windows Node 22 verifier. Fresh exact-head CI, including Windows Node 24, is still required. No dependency upgrade or feature-specific release-version change is included.
Public disclosure review
Newly authored material was reviewed for public disclosure. Existing automated review comments contain access-restricted report references; maintainer cleanup remains outstanding.