## Review Desk\: edit and decide locally Imani prepares a fictional release note\. Her goal is to let a person review the wording before it is treated as accepted\. Her obstacle is that “accept” is often confused with “publish\.” She makes a narrower decision\: acceptance will be **a local status change only**\. The extension contains no send\-to\-service or publish operation\. Review Desk is one complete downloadable module set\. The milestones below explain its progression\; they are not separate downloadable versions\. ### The project Files\: - [Entry and runtime coordination]() - [Domain transitions]() - [Native panel and bounded text]() - [UI and tool copy]() - [Fictional release\-note fixture]() - [Story and protocol notes]() **Terminal shell—launch the complete Review Desk\:** ~~~sh omp --no-extensions -e "$EXAMPLES/review-desk/index.ts" --session "$LAB/review-session.jsonl" ~~~ The compatible loader resolves the runtime TUI import\. If that fails\, investigate host\/package compatibility rather than replacing `panel.ts` with an inert mock\. ### Milestone\: inspect without changing the draft **Starting state\:** fixture text\, revision `0`\, status `draft`\, no agent grant\. **Human OMP slash command\:** ~~~text /review-desk show ~~~ **Model tool arguments—call `review_desk`\:** ~~~json {"op":"discover"} ~~~ ~~~json {"op":"inspect"} ~~~ ~~~json {"op":"query"} ~~~ `inspect` returns the complete draft\, status\, revision and authorization status\. `query` is smaller\: revision\, status\, authorization\, whether a dialog is busy\, and the extension mode\. **Expected query result in a fresh TUI session\:** ~~~json { "revision": 0, "status": "draft", "authorized": false, "busy": false, "mode": "tui" } ~~~ The tool duplicates its structured result as JSON text in `content`\, so its machine contract is also model\-visible\. `show` refreshes the status\/widget and sends a custom review message\. It does not increment the draft revision\, but it is not completely journal\-inert\: the custom message is conversation data\. **Observed\:** the loaded SDK tool exposed `discover`\, `inspect`\, `query` and `act`\, and refused an unauthorized mutation without changing the draft\. **Exercise\:** is a status widget a substitute for `inspect`\? **Answer\:** no\. The widget is a short human summary\. `inspect` is the supported way to retrieve the actual domain state\. ### Know the mode before opening a review The same property can exist in every mode while doing useful work in only some of them\. | Host | What Review Desk can use | Degraded behavior | | --- | --- | --- | | TUI | Standard editor\/selector dialogs\, status\, string widget\, custom message renderer and native overlay | Requires real terminal presentation and input | | RPC | Editor\, confirm and labeled select requests answered by a connected client\; passive status\/widget frames | No native component factory or synchronous composer read | | ACP | The supplied ACP adapter exposes semantic forms and initializes extensions with `mode: "rpc"` | Form support depends on negotiated `elicitation.form`\; terminal presentation remains unavailable | | Default print\/JSON context | Read tools and explanatory custom messages | The example refuses its interactive review\, overlay and delegation paths | **Source\-backed ACP nuance\:** the ACP extension context can report UI availability even when form elicitation is unsupported\. Its dialog methods then return defaults\. Because Review Desk accepts `mode: "rpc"`\, an ACP `review` with no form capability can receive `undefined` from `editor()` and record a **cancelled review outcome**\. Delegation receives false and grants nothing\. That differs from the explicit print\-mode guard\, which changes neither draft nor authorization\. The recorded Review Desk protocol scenario exercised RPC\, not a Review Desk\-specific ACP client flow\. ### Milestone\: edit and accept locally Imani asks for a review rather than directly replacing the draft\. **Human OMP slash command\:** ~~~text /review-desk review ~~~ The standard flow is\: 1. Open a multiline editor with sanitized draft text\. 2. Edit the note\. 3. Submit the editor\. 4. Choose **Accept locally**\, **Reject**\, or **Cancel**\. In the TUI multiline editor\, Enter inserts a newline\. Submit with the editor’s configured follow\-up chord—by default Ctrl\+Q or Ctrl\+Enter\. The core editor also exposes its normal Ctrl\+G external\-editor shortcut\; this extension does not invoke an external editor programmatically\. For the following checkpoint\, use this text\: **Text to enter in the review editor\:** ~~~text Release 1.4 A human-reviewed local note. Nothing is published. ~~~ Choose **Accept locally**\. **Observed RPC checkpoint\:** the edited text became revision `1`\, status `accepted`\, with `authorized: false`\. The selector carried labels and aligned descriptions\. Status and string\-widget frames were emitted\. The original `release-note.txt` fixture was not overwritten\. The draft is reconstructed from custom session entries named `workbook-review-desk-state`\. ### Milestone\: rejection and cancellation are distinct outcomes Imani next tries an edit she does not like\. Rather than hiding what happened\, the domain records a review outcome while preserving the pre\-dialog text\. | Human outcome | Stored text | Status | Revision | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Accept locally | Edited text | `accepted` | Increases once | | Reject | Original pre\-dialog text | `rejected` | Increases once | | Escape from editor | Original pre\-dialog text | `cancelled` | Increases once | | Cancel or dismiss selector | Original pre\-dialog text | `cancelled` | Increases once | **Observed\:** after the accepted revision\, rejection produced revision `2`\, and editor cancellation produced revision `3`\. Both retained the accepted note’s text\. This is an important vocabulary distinction\: - **Cancel a review\:** record that the review was cancelled\; revision increases\. - **Abort presentation because authority was invalidated or the session moved\:** do not record a review on a different branch\. - **Revoke agent authority\:** leave draft text\, status and revision unchanged\. Blank or over\-12\,000\-character replacement text fails domain validation\. The tool additionally constrains its `text` parameter\. Rejection and cancellation cannot be used to smuggle replacement text through the domain function\. **Exercise\:** after accepting revision `1`\, open the editor\, replace all text\, submit\, then choose Reject\. Which text remains\? **Answer\:** the pre\-dialog revision\-1 text\, now with status `rejected` and revision `2`\. ### Milestone\: authorize one agent action on one revision Imani wants the agent to shorten the draft once\. She does not want a permanent permission recovered from the transcript\. **Human OMP slash command\:** ~~~text /review-desk delegate ~~~ Confirm the dialog\. The grant is\: - in memory only\; - associated with the current session ID\; - associated with the inspected numeric revision\; - consumed by a successful mutation\. The tool cannot grant itself permission\. If you followed the accepted\/rejected\/cancelled sequence and `inspect` reports revision `3`\, the following is an exact next action\. **Model tool arguments—call `review_desk` only after checking that the current revision is `3` and the human grant is active\:** ~~~json { "op": "act", "action": "revise", "expectedRevision": 3, "text": "Agent revision, still local." } ~~~ **Observed result\:** ~~~json { "revision": 4, "status": "draft", "text": "Agent revision, still local.", "authorized": false, "published": false } ~~~ If your revision differs\, inspect and use that revision instead\. Never substitute a guessed counter\. Other agent actions are `accept`\, `reject` and `cancel`\. They preserve the inspected text and do not accept a `text` argument\. To change text\, use `revise`\. A stale action fails without mutation\. A failed stale attempt does not consume the valid grant\; a successful action does\. A second successful attempt requires another human grant\. An open dialog blocks tool mutations with `Review dialog open. Nothing changed.` ### Milestone\: revocation defeats a late positive answer The first implementation of revocation had a classic asynchronous bug\: clearing the current grant did not invalidate a confirmation already awaiting a response\. A late positive answer could restore authority\. Imani’s decision changes from “clear the value” to “retire the pending decision\.” **Exact excerpt—authority invalidation in [Review Desk’s entry]()\:** ~~~ts function invalidateAuthority(): void { generation++; grant = undefined; pending?.abort(); } pi.on("session_before_switch", invalidateAuthority); pi.on("session_before_branch", invalidateAuthority); pi.on("session_before_tree", invalidateAuthority); ~~~ The handler remembers the generation before awaiting the dialog\. **Exact excerpt—the delegation result is accepted only in the same generation\:** ~~~ts if (verb === "delegate") { const approved = await ctx.ui.confirm(copy.grantTitle, copy.grantMessage, { signal: controller.signal }); if (epoch !== generation) return; grant = approved ? { sessionId: ctx.sessionManager.getSessionId(), revision: state.revision } : undefined; present(ctx, state); ctx.ui.notify(approved ? `One agent change authorized for revision ${state.revision}.` : "No agent change authorized. Draft unchanged."); return; } ~~~ **Human OMP slash command\:** ~~~text /review-desk revoke ~~~ **Observed correction\:** revoking during a real pending RPC confirmation emitted a matching cancel frame\. A delayed positive response to the retired request did not restore authority\. The draft was unchanged\, and `busy` became false after the pending handler settled\. The same invalidation machinery handles session switching\, branching\, tree navigation and shutdown\. A same\-session reload that uses the switch path also invalidates authority\. #### Honest limits - The numeric revision is a domain counter\, not Seed Desk’s session\-plus\-entry\-ID token\. - Navigation hooks invalidate the grant so sibling revisions cannot retain it through the supported flow\. - This is not protection against arbitrary in\-process code rewriting domain entries\. - `stateFor()` skips stored entries that fail `isReviewState()`\. Unlike Seed Desk\, it does not fail closed on every malformed matching snapshot\. Treat this as a small teaching fixture\, not a complete corruption\-recovery system\. **Exercise\:** revoke while a delegate confirmation is pending\, then have the client answer the old request positively\. **Checkpoint\:** no authorization\, no draft mutation\, and no revived dialog\. *Source\, snapshot 2026\-08\-29\: linked Review Desk files\; `packages/coding-agent/src/modes/rpc/rpc-mode.ts`\, `requestRpcDialog`\, `requestRpcEditor`\; `packages/coding-agent/src/modes/acp/acp-agent.ts`\, `createAcpExtensionUiContext`\, `#configureExtensions`\.*