What problem does this solve?
The interactive [Y/n/e]\ prompt falls a bit short in ask mode compared to Claude Code's capabilities.
We successfully integrated a spectacular diff viewer in the \eat/interactive-permissions\ branch, but currently, if the user rejects (
), it simply aborts execution or assumes a generic error. Furthermore, there's no way to give feedback or to say 'yes, but leave me alone from now on for this tool'.
Proposed solution
- Expand the options to be more powerful (potentially adding keyboard shortcuts).
- Yes and always allow: Allow the user to accept this tool invocation and automatically switch to \�uto\ mode so it stops asking for safe tools.
- Feedback text box (No, do this instead): Instead of aborting right away, if the user chooses
, deploy an inline \prompt_toolkit\ input box within the confirmation block so the user can instruct the agent on what to do instead and why the action was rejected.
- This text correction should be injected into the history as a 'user' message to steer the agent back on track.
Alternatives considered
- Sticking with the pure \�sk\ flow and forcing the user to manually interrupt the agent to explain their disagreement, which adds friction to the workflow.
What problem does this solve?
The interactive [Y/n/e]\ prompt falls a bit short in ask mode compared to Claude Code's capabilities.
We successfully integrated a spectacular diff viewer in the \eat/interactive-permissions\ branch, but currently, if the user rejects (
), it simply aborts execution or assumes a generic error. Furthermore, there's no way to give feedback or to say 'yes, but leave me alone from now on for this tool'.
Proposed solution
, deploy an inline \prompt_toolkit\ input box within the confirmation block so the user can instruct the agent on what to do instead and why the action was rejected.
Alternatives considered