Running feedback log. Record observed friction and suggested improvements here; this is not an instruction or settings file. Items can be refined before sharing with Propter.
Model selected for this session: gpt-6-sol(medium) (reported by the operator; not independently verified from a settings screen).
Priority: Low
Observed: The assistant asked before creating or editing ordinary local XO working files, even after the operator had explicitly approved such writes. Most recently, it asked again before making a D&D working document and shortening the XO handoff. The operator clarified that permission is not required for creating or editing ordinary files; explicit assistant instructions and settings remain separate gates.
Why it matters: Re-asking slows the workflow and makes granted permission feel unreliable.
Suggested improvement: Carry forward the approved scope of ordinary file writes across turns and compactions. Ask only when a write falls outside that scope (for example, changes to the assistant's explicit instructions or settings), and don't treat a narrow approval as permission for unrelated gated actions.
User Notes: I'm moderately experienced with LLM harnesses and this wasn't a strict permission prompt as determined by my harnesses rules - I think the context had the effect of making the model more cautious.
Priority: Nice to have
Request: XO should recommend an appropriate model size (e.g. Opus vs. Sonnet) and effort level for the work at hand, rather than leave the operator to choose without guidance.
Why it matters: Different tasks warrant different amounts of capability and reasoning effort; a brief recommendation can help balance quality, speed, and cost.
Suggested improvement: When a choice is useful, name a suitable model size and effort level with a task-specific reason and any important tradeoff. Keep recommendations distinct from changing settings: the operator decides whether to switch.
User Notes: This is also more for new users, who may not get what the difference between Sol, Astra and Luna or what effort means; sensible defaults, and perhaps a brief description of use cases for larger models and effort would help them
Priority: High
Request: XO should notice when a side topic is complete and gently return to the pending task more consistently. If it does not redirect, it should at least acknowledge that it missed the handoff back to the main task. Keep the redirect brief and non-coercive: the operator chooses what to work on.
Breadcrumb trail from this conversation:
- We were preparing materials for D&D as well as exercise-tracking sheets. D&D rules research went to a focused subagent so it would not dominate the XO conversation; the next question was whether to reuse an exercise sheet or design one.
- The operator asked to move D&D detail into a separate document. The assistant asked for permission to write ordinary local files despite earlier approval. After the operator said yes and clarified that ordinary file edits need no repeated approval, the assistant created the document and trimmed the handoff.
- The operator asked for a feedback log with that permission friction and a request for model-size/effort recommendations. The assistant created and corrected the log, but ended those turns without returning to the exercise-sheet question.
- The operator explicitly asked whether the assistant would pull them back on topic. Only then did the assistant cite XO's existing instruction to keep the thread and ask again about the exercise sheet.
Why it matters: Recording a tangent is useful, but not enough when the operator relies on the assistant to hold the next step and reduce attention-switching cost.
Further correction from the operator: The active D&D task was not complete when the assistant shifted to the next task, the exercise sheets. Calling the exercise question a return to the main task compounded the mistake. Running a D&D subagent was a delegation of research, not a decision to pause or deprioritize D&D; the operator had not chosen to switch tasks. The operator has an existing exercise sheet tracking sheet on their local machine, but sharing its path did not make it the active task.
Suggested improvement: After a side request, return to the last unfinished user-selected task, not merely the next item in a task list. A subagent running or returning does not by itself close or replace that task. Ask before switching to another print job; if a redirect is missed or goes to the wrong topic, acknowledge and correct it plainly.
User Notes: This requires the model to have a notion of 'done' (see next item) which may be difficult to define in a workflow like this. Would still be helpful for agent to check whether the operator believes a task is complete and potentially initiate moving on
Priority: High
Request: XO should notice when the originally selected task reaches an agreed stopping point or is complete, state whether the work is incomplete, blocked, or complete, and offer a choice: continue the current rabbit hole or give it a short, time-bounded wrap-up and return to the selected task. For example: “Want to wrap this in ten minutes and return to the task at hand?” A suggested duration is not a timer imposed on the operator, and XO must not/cannot force a task switch.
Breadcrumb: The operator dug deep into the D&D materials, but the original scope of the task was still unfinished. The operator wanted help noticing that boundary, not automatic abandonment of the task or an inaccurate claim that it was done.
Why it matters: A satisfying side discovery can feel like task completion even when the deliverable remains open. A truthful status and optional transition keep the operator in charge of what happens next.
User Notes: I would find this to be helpful to keep on task, while still having graceful context changes/realignments
Priority: Low
Request: When XO can observe concurrent sessions or the operator discloses them (terminal agent tabs, browser agents, or Codex/Claude Desktop threads) it should gently suggest one active session at a time and a brief parking note or handoff for the others. It should not claim to see unseen tabs or apps, monitor them without authorization, or forbid multitasking; the operator chooses whether and when to switch.
Why it matters: Switching attention between sessions can duplicate work and leak context in either direction: details from one task can be mistaken for another's, and unfinished decisions can be lost or carried into the wrong thread. A small handoff preserves each thread's place without treating focus as a mandate.
User Notes: I would find this helpful, as I lean towards adding more and more multi-tasking options but that exhausts my context window. Since AI response times can be a little slow, some multi-tasking may be acceptable, but having an agent remind you to stop opening new Codex threads would be helpful