Feature: publish a versioned ACP/host protocol for IDE and orchestration integrations

Abierto
#669 1 comentario 1 reacción 0 asignados Ver en GitHub

Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.

Evaluación

Dificultad
5/5
Tiempo estimado
Más de una semana
Aptitud para principiantes
25/100
Tipo de issue
Nueva funcionalidad
Claridad
Bastante claro
Estado de actividad
Tranquilo
Stack tecnológico
cli
Área
api, cli, security

Línea de trabajo

Comienza examinando el punto de entrada NDJSON headless existente y el prompt de permisos actual de TUI, y compáralos después con el punto de entrada propuesto command-code acp y con PermissionDecisionProvider/PermissionPromptBridge. Se considera terminado cuando el equipo haya seleccionado una dirección para el protocolo y haya definido los requisitos de handshake versionado, sesión, permisos, errores, esquema y conformidad; en el issue no se identifican archivos de implementación ni pruebas.

Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.

Descripción

Goal

I am preparing a Command Code integration for T3 Code and would prefer a supported public boundary rather than terminal parsing, project settings, or experimental Mods.

The existing headless NDJSON mode is already a strong one-way event/result stream. The missing piece for first-class IDE/orchestrator integrations is a bidirectional local host protocol: permissions, structured user input, cancellation, durable sessions, model discovery, capability negotiation, and attachment support.

Proposal

Publish a long-lived local stdio mode, for example:

command-code acp

It would implement ACP v1 over JSON-RPC and advertise a capability-gated commandcode.profile/v1 for Command Code-specific behavior.

The public contract should include:

  • protocol-version and capability handshake;
  • create/resume/fork/rollback/cancel session lifecycle with opaque stable IDs;
  • ordered session/turn/tool/subagent events with correlation IDs and sequence numbers;
  • request/response permissions before every gated side effect, including MCP tools;
  • structured ask_user_question responses;
  • JSON model discovery, model selection, modes, typed safe errors, and image attachments;
  • a published schema/types package, plus black-box conformance fixtures.

Permission bridge: reuse the existing engine

The request is not to create a parallel security model.

The public host boundary should abstract the existing “ask” prompt behind a native PermissionDecisionProvider / PermissionPromptBridge, with two implementations:

  • the existing TUI prompt;
  • an ACP/host implementation.

The required decision flow is:

  1. local hard-deny and safety rules remain authoritative;
  2. locally pre-approved actions proceed normally;
  3. only an unresolved ask is emitted to the host as a correlated permission request;
  4. the host returns one of the offered decisions (allow once, scoped session allow when supported, deny, cancel);
  5. timeout, disconnect, malformed response, stale/duplicate request ID, or cancellation denies the pending action.

In other words, host mode should behave like the existing fail-closed dont-ask policy plus an external, structured channel for the unresolved ask outcome. It must not write project settings or let a host override local deny rules.

This ask-routing must be native machinery: the current Mod API can add tools, hooks, and observers, but does not document interception of the underlying permission decision itself.

Security expectations

  • A lost connection, timeout, malformed response, stale request ID, or cancellation must deny the pending action and emit one terminal result.
  • Existing local deny rules remain authoritative.
  • A session-level approval is in-memory and scoped; it must not write project settings.
  • The protocol is local stdio only: no network listener and no credentials from an external orchestrator client.

This would let T3, IDEs, CI systems, and other clients integrate against a versioned contract while preserving the interactive TUI, Hooks, and Mods as separate local extension surfaces.

I can help validate the protocol with an independent T3 adapter and conformance suite when the source is available.

Would the team prefer:

  1. ACP v1 + a Command Code capability profile;
  2. a Command Code-specific stdio protocol with equivalent guarantees; or
  3. both, sharing one public schema layer?
Lenguaje dominante
Sin datos de lenguaje
Estrellas
4k
Forks
350
Métricas de merge de PR
Sin PR fusionados en 30 d

Guía de contribución

No hay ninguna guía de contribución indexada para este repositorio

Primeros pasos

  1. Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
  2. Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
  3. Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
  4. Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.

Más de CommandCodeAI/command-code

Todos los issues de CommandCodeAI/command-code

Issues similares

Más issues de Backend & API Design

Recibe los nuevos issues en tu correo

Un resumen breve de issues de GitHub para principiantes.