This adds a first-class server request for MCP server elicitations:
`mcpServer/elicitation/request`.
Until now, MCP elicitation requests only showed up as a raw
`codex/event/elicitation_request` event from core. That made it hard for
v2 clients to handle elicitations using the same request/response flow
as other server-driven interactions (like shell and `apply_patch`
tools).
This also updates the underlying MCP elicitation request handling in
core to pass through the full MCP request (including URL and form data)
so we can expose it properly in app-server.
### Why not `item/mcpToolCall/elicitationRequest`?
This is because MCP elicitations are related to MCP servers first, and
only optionally to a specific MCP tool call.
In the MCP protocol, elicitation is a server-to-client capability: the
server sends `elicitation/create`, and the client replies with an
elicitation result. RMCP models it that way as well.
In practice an elicitation is often triggered by an MCP tool call, but
not always.
### What changed
- add `mcpServer/elicitation/request` to the v2 app-server API
- translate core `codex/event/elicitation_request` events into the new
v2 server request
- map client responses back into `Op::ResolveElicitation` so the MCP
server can continue
- update app-server docs and generated protocol schema
- add an end-to-end app-server test that covers the full round trip
through a real RMCP elicitation flow
- The new test exercises a realistic case where an MCP tool call
triggers an elicitation, the app-server emits
mcpServer/elicitation/request, the client accepts it, and the tool call
resumes and completes successfully.
### app-server API flow
- Client starts a thread with `thread/start`.
- Client starts a turn with `turn/start`.
- App-server sends `item/started` for the `mcpToolCall`.
- While that tool call is in progress, app-server sends
`mcpServer/elicitation/request`.
- Client responds to that request with `{ action: "accept" | "decline" |
"cancel" }`.
- App-server sends `serverRequest/resolved`.
- App-server sends `item/completed` for the mcpToolCall.
- App-server sends `turn/completed`.
- If the turn is interrupted while the elicitation is pending,
app-server still sends `serverRequest/resolved` before the turn
finishes.
Command-approval clients currently infer which choices to show from
side-channel fields like `networkApprovalContext`,
`proposedExecpolicyAmendment`, and `additionalPermissions`. That makes
the request shape harder to evolve, and it forces each client to
replicate the server's heuristics instead of receiving the exact
decision list for the prompt.
This PR introduces a mapping between `CommandExecutionApprovalDecision`
and `codex_protocol::protocol::ReviewDecision`:
```rust
impl From<CoreReviewDecision> for CommandExecutionApprovalDecision {
fn from(value: CoreReviewDecision) -> Self {
match value {
CoreReviewDecision::Approved => Self::Accept,
CoreReviewDecision::ApprovedExecpolicyAmendment {
proposed_execpolicy_amendment,
} => Self::AcceptWithExecpolicyAmendment {
execpolicy_amendment: proposed_execpolicy_amendment.into(),
},
CoreReviewDecision::ApprovedForSession => Self::AcceptForSession,
CoreReviewDecision::NetworkPolicyAmendment {
network_policy_amendment,
} => Self::ApplyNetworkPolicyAmendment {
network_policy_amendment: network_policy_amendment.into(),
},
CoreReviewDecision::Abort => Self::Cancel,
CoreReviewDecision::Denied => Self::Decline,
}
}
}
```
And updates `CommandExecutionRequestApprovalParams` to have a new field:
```rust
available_decisions: Option<Vec<CommandExecutionApprovalDecision>>
```
when, if specified, should make it easier for clients to display an
appropriate list of options in the UI.
This makes it possible for `CoreShellActionProvider::prompt()` in
`unix_escalation.rs` to specify the `Vec<ReviewDecision>` directly,
adding support for `ApprovedForSession` when approving a skill script,
which was previously missing in the TUI.
Note this results in a significant change to `exec_options()` in
`approval_overlay.rs`, as the displayed options are now derived from
`available_decisions: &[ReviewDecision]`.
## What Changed
- Add `available_decisions` to
[`ExecApprovalRequestEvent`](https://github.com/openai/codex/blob/de00e932dd9801de0a4faac0519162099753f331/codex-rs/protocol/src/approvals.rs#L111-L175),
including helpers to derive the legacy default choices when older
senders omit the field.
- Map `codex_protocol::protocol::ReviewDecision` to app-server
`CommandExecutionApprovalDecision` and expose the ordered list as
experimental `availableDecisions` in
[`CommandExecutionRequestApprovalParams`](https://github.com/openai/codex/blob/de00e932dd9801de0a4faac0519162099753f331/codex-rs/app-server-protocol/src/protocol/v2.rs#L3798-L3807).
- Thread optional `available_decisions` through the core approval path
so Unix shell escalation can explicitly request `ApprovedForSession` for
session-scoped approvals instead of relying on client heuristics.
[`unix_escalation.rs`](https://github.com/openai/codex/blob/de00e932dd9801de0a4faac0519162099753f331/codex-rs/core/src/tools/runtimes/shell/unix_escalation.rs#L194-L214)
- Update the TUI approval overlay to build its buttons from the ordered
decision list, while preserving the legacy fallback when
`available_decisions` is missing.
- Update the app-server README, test client output, and generated schema
artifacts to document and surface the new field.
## Testing
- Add `approval_overlay.rs` coverage for explicit decision lists,
including the generic `ApprovedForSession` path and network approval
options.
- Update `chatwidget/tests.rs` and app-server protocol tests to populate
the new optional field and keep older event shapes working.
## Developers Docs
- If we document `item/commandExecution/requestApproval` on
[developers.openai.com/codex](https://developers.openai.com/codex), add
experimental `availableDecisions` as the preferred source of approval
choices and note that older servers may omit it.
Summary
- propagate approval policy from parent to spawned agents and drop the
Never override so sub-agents respect the caller’s request
- refresh the pending-approval list whenever events arrive or the active
thread changes and surface the list above the composer for inactive
threads
- add widgets, helpers, and tests covering the new pending-thread
approval UI state
![Uploading Screenshot 2026-02-25 at 11.02.18.png…]()
## Why
`ExecApprovalRequestEvent` can carry a distinct `approval_id` for
subcommand approvals, including the `execve`-intercepted zsh-fork path.
The session registers the pending approval callback under `approval_id`
when one is present, but `ChatWidget` was stashing `call_id` in the
approval modal state. When the user approved the command in the TUI, the
response was sent back with the wrong identifier, so the pending
approval could not be matched and the approval callback would not
resolve.
Note `approval_id` was introduced in
https://github.com/openai/codex/pull/12051.
## What changed
- In `tui/src/chatwidget.rs`, `ChatWidget` now uses
`ExecApprovalRequestEvent::effective_approval_id()` when constructing
`ApprovalRequest::Exec`.
- That preserves the existing behavior for normal shell and
`unified_exec` approvals, where `approval_id` is absent and the
effective id still falls back to `call_id`.
- For subcommand approvals that provide a distinct `approval_id`, the
TUI now sends back the same key that
`Session::request_command_approval()` registered.
## Verification
- Traced the approval flow end to end to confirm the same effective
approval id is now used on both sides of the round trip:
- `Session::request_command_approval()` registers the pending callback
under `approval_id.unwrap_or(call_id)`.
- `ChatWidget` now emits `Op::ExecApproval` with that same effective id.
## Why
This PR switches the `shell_command` zsh-fork path over to
`codex-shell-escalation` so the new shell tool can use the shared
exec-wrapper/escalation protocol instead of the `zsh_exec_bridge`
implementation that was introduced in
https://github.com/openai/codex/pull/12052. `zsh_exec_bridge` relied on
UNIX domain sockets, which is not as tamper-proof as the FD-based
approach in `codex-shell-escalation`.
## What Changed
- Added a Unix zsh-fork runtime adapter in `core`
(`core/src/tools/runtimes/shell/unix_escalation.rs`) that:
- runs zsh-fork commands through
`codex_shell_escalation::run_escalate_server`
- bridges exec-policy / approval decisions into `ShellActionProvider`
- executes escalated commands via a `ShellCommandExecutor` that calls
`process_exec_tool_call`
- Updated `ShellRuntime` / `ShellCommandHandler` / tool spec wiring to
select a `shell_command` backend (`classic` vs `zsh-fork`) while leaving
the generic `shell` tool path unchanged.
- Removed the `zsh_exec_bridge`-based session service and deleted
`core/src/zsh_exec_bridge/mod.rs`.
- Moved exec-wrapper entrypoint dispatch to `arg0` by handling the
`codex-execve-wrapper` arg0 alias there, and removed the old
`codex_core::maybe_run_zsh_exec_wrapper_mode()` hooks from `cli` and
`app-server` mains.
- Added the needed `codex-shell-escalation` dependencies for `core` and
`arg0`.
## Tests
- `cargo test -p codex-core
shell_zsh_fork_prefers_shell_command_over_unified_exec`
- `cargo test -p codex-app-server turn_start_shell_zsh_fork --
--nocapture`
- verifies zsh-fork command execution and approval flows through the new
backend
- includes subcommand approve/decline coverage using the shared zsh
DotSlash fixture in `app-server/tests/suite/zsh`
- To test manually, I added the following to `~/.codex/config.toml`:
```toml
zsh_path = "/Users/mbolin/code/codex3/codex-rs/app-server/tests/suite/zsh"
[features]
shell_zsh_fork = true
```
Then I ran `just c` to run the dev build of Codex with these changes and
sent it the message:
```
run `echo $0`
```
And it replied with:
```
echo $0 printed:
/Users/mbolin/code/codex3/codex-rs/app-server/tests/suite/zsh
In this tool context, $0 reflects the script path used to invoke the shell, not just zsh.
```
so the tool appears to be wired up correctly.
## Notes
- The zsh subcommand-decline integration test now uses `rm` under a
`WorkspaceWrite` sandbox. The previous `/usr/bin/true` scenario is
auto-allowed by the new `shell-escalation` policy path, which no longer
produces subcommand approval prompts.
Dylan Hurd ·
Celia Chen ·
Matthew Zeng ·
Owen Lin ·
Michael Bolin ·
jif-oai ·