[codex] Add unified search controls#3
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Adds the unified search controls layer that was planned for
search_referencesand provider-backed retrieval:controls, provider capability declarations, applied/ignored controls metadata, and a core dedupe hooksearch_referencesinput/output schemas with controls, explain/meta information, provider status, filter compatibility, and readable failure feedbackfiltersfallback behaviorImpact
Callers get one stable control contract instead of needing to know each provider native parameter names. Provider packages remain responsible for translating supported controls into provider-specific query parameters, and unsupported controls are surfaced in metadata instead of silently pretending they applied.
Validation
pnpm typecheckpnpm test:runpnpm buildgit diff --checkA local re-review found no Critical or Important blocking issues; only follow-up polish was noted for skipped-provider control metadata wording and Brave moderate safety mapping.