[ThomasK33]

Summary

No-behavior-change refactor for the readiness-advisor follow-ups of phase 4 PRs 13, 14 and 18 in #7326. The branch-summary marker, the four subagent artifact writers, the patch-apply watermark and ToolConfiguration now require the caller's SessionLocks instead of falling back to the Node layer, and the two skill tools pass the tool config's locks to the target mutation lock. Two production sites that built a ToolConfiguration without locks now pass historyService.locks. In the app every one of these resolves to nodeSessionLocks, so the locks taken do not change.

Refs #7326

Items

#7326 item	Result
PR 18 (#7427) advisor 1: startAbandonedBranchSummaryInBackground and awaitPendingBranchSummary fall back to nodeSessionLocks	Done. Both take an optional marker: BranchSummaryMarker ({ sessionDir, locks }) instead of sessionDir? plus an optional or defaulted locks. The locks are needed only for the marker, so a caller that names the marker must name its locks, and the calls without a session dir stay as they are.
PR 18 (#7427) advisor 2: the call-record branch-summary scenario uses the default locks	Done. oneFork passes historyService.locks to the writer and the reader. The recorded fixture does not change.
PR 14 (#7425) advisor 1: the 4 artifact functions keep an optional locks	Done. locks is required in subagentFailureArtifacts.ts, subagentReportArtifacts.ts, subagentTranscriptArtifacts.ts and subagentGitPatchArtifacts.ts, and in applyProjectPatch (taskGitPatchEngine.ts), which passes it through. Every production call already passed locks. The test calls pass nodeSessionLocks.
PR 14 (#7425) advisor 2: ToolConfiguration.sessionLocks is optional	Done. It is required. createTestToolConfig supplies nodeSessionLocks. Two production configs left it out and now pass historyService.locks: the skill-write config of RefineService and the IPC bash tool of WorkspaceService. todo.ts and review_pane.ts drop their ?? nodeSessionLocks.
PR 13 (#7423) advisor: 9 callers of the target mutation lock take the Node default	Partly done. agent_skill_write.ts and agent_skill_delete.ts pass config.sessionLocks (6 sites), with a test each. The other 7 (memoryService.ts, reviewStateService.ts, mcpAppResultStore.ts, devToolsService.ts, draftService.ts, creationDraftService.ts, backup/adapters.ts) have no SessionLocks in scope: each needs a new constructor dependency and about 300 test constructions, for no change in the app. Reasoned close in #7326.
PR 12 (#7404) advisor: the durable journal callers	Not in this PR. They touch the files of #7485, which is still open.

Validation

• The two new tests ("takes the target lock from the config's session locks", in agent_skill_write.test.ts and agent_skill_delete.test.ts) fail when the tools drop config.sessionLocks and pass with it.

• The other changes are type-level: tsc fails on any caller that leaves the locks out.

• sessionLocks.callOptions.test.ts passes with the fixture unchanged.

• git merge-tree of this head with each open turn-engine/* PR and with 🤖 refactor: read the session clock for notification polls and clutter scans #7491 gives no conflict that this PR causes. 🤖 test: pin the turn lifecycle on the real StreamManager stack #7488 conflicts with main in streamManager.ts, a file that this PR does not change.

• Mutation gate: the final make mutate-check run (--max-mutants 900, base e803893) found 287 survivors, all in AgentSession.prepareMessage. That is the hotspot that 🤖 tests: mutation survivors on lines that phase 4 PRs did not change (moved from #7326) #7475 lists, and this PR changes only one argument there. I did not chase them. The run stopped at its time budget with 438 mutants not run, so it did not reach the other changed functions. MUTATION_MODE is warn.

Risks

Low. In the app the injected locks are nodeSessionLocks everywhere, so no lock path or lock kind changes. Most of the diff is test call sites that now name nodeSessionLocks.

---

Generated with xum • Model: anthropic:claude-opus-5-5 • Thinking: high • Cost: $209.75

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-25T18:30:51.625603Z	e28993e	Manual request
🔒 Security Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-25T18:32:24.073437Z	e28993e	Manual request

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" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[github-actions]

🟢 e2e stories (Haiku): 14 passed

27 agent steps · 7 replayed from cache · 32 model calls · 224.7k tokens (76% cached)
Spend: $0.09 of the $1.00 cap (proxy ledger)

All 14 tests in 9 files

	Test	Agent	Time
🟢	chatRestart.e2e.ts · 1 passed	2 steps · 4 calls	25.1s
🟢	a chat survives a restart of the server	2 steps · 4 calls	25.1s
🟢	compaction.e2e.ts · 1 passed	3 steps · 7 calls	51.4s
🟢	/compact replaces the old chat with a summary	3 steps · 7 calls	51.4s
🟢	pluginTrustRestart.e2e.ts · 1 passed	4 steps · 2 calls	9.3s
🟢	a trusted plugin hook stays trusted after the server restarts	4 steps · 2 calls	9.3s
🟢	settingsRoundTrip.e2e.ts · 1 passed	3 steps · 5 calls	33.9s
🟢	a chat survives trips through Settings	3 steps · 5 calls	33.9s
🟢	sidebarPerWorkspace.e2e.ts · 1 passed	4 steps · 1 call	4.3s
🟢	a new workspace starts with its right sidebar collapsed while another keeps it open	4 steps · 1 call	4.3s
🟢	smoke.e2e.ts · 1 passed	2 steps · 1 call	6.3s
🟢	the agent opens the playground workspace	2 steps · 1 call	6.3s
🟢	streamErrors.e2e.ts · 1 passed	1 step · 1 call	6.7s
🟢	stream errors show in the chat, and the chat recovers	1 step · 1 call	6.7s
🟢	todoNudge.e2e.ts · 1 passed	2 steps · 5 calls	23.4s
🟢	the agent finishes open TODO items after the turn-end nudge	2 steps · 5 calls	23.4s
🟢	touchAlignment.e2e.ts · 6 passed	6 steps · 6 calls	22.3s
🟢	the Settings close button is level with the title on a touch screen 390px wide	1 step · 1 call	3.9s
🟢	the Settings close button is level with the title on a touch screen 768px wide	1 step · 1 call	4.1s
🟢	Backup settings checkboxes are small and level with their labels on a touch phone	1 step · 1 call	4.5s
🟢	the heartbeat checkbox is small and level with its label on a touch phone	1 step · 1 call	3.7s
🟢	a reply's model and time stay on one line on a touch phone	1 step · 1 call	3.3s
🟢	the workspace actions menu stays on the title row on a touch phone	1 step · 1 call	2.8s

_{e2e 0.20.0 · 3m 6s · web · run artifacts}

🟢 e2e Electron stories (Haiku): 3 passed

3 agent steps · 3 model calls · 8.0k tokens (32% cached)
Spend: $0.01 of the $1.00 cap (proxy ledger)

All 3 tests in 3 files

	Test	Agent	Time
🟢	electron/deepLink.e2e.ts · 1 passed	1 step · 1 call	5.1s
🟢	a deep link of a second launch starts a chat in the running app	1 step · 1 call	5.1s
🟢	electron/menuBar.e2e.ts · 1 passed	1 step · 1 call	5.5s
🟢	the workspace menu bar is the desktop title bar	1 step · 1 call	5.5s
🟢	electron/smoke.e2e.ts · 1 passed	1 step · 1 call	8.3s
🟢	Xum Electron opens the playground workspace	1 step · 1 call	8.3s

_{e2e 0.20.0 · 21.0s · electron · run artifacts}

🟢 e2e agent repros (Haiku): no tests selected

Spend: $0.00 of the $1.00 cap (proxy ledger)

_{e2e 0.20.0 · 5.3s · 2 targets (web, phone) · run artifacts}

[ThomasK33]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. 🚀

Reviewed commit: e28993ef0b

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".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

🛡️ Codex Security Review · Automatically triggered

Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request.

Reviewed commit: e28993ef0b

View security finding report

Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex.

ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHub

This is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:

• You comment "@codex security review"
• A regular code review gets triggered (for example, "@codex review" or when a PR is opened), and you’re opted in so security review runs alongside code review

Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found.