Comment by embedding-shape
7 days ago
> this is not happening for sub-agent requests made in my own harness to other model providers treated as sub-agents.
Obviously it doesn't, how even could it? Read the issue description, it wouldn't make sense if something like that was possible, considering how it was implemented...
Raising only because others cited concerns this might cause issues in personal harness contexts. It doesn't.
Obviously, I wasn't claiming that it would WORK for cross-model subagents, but that this would be a limiting behavior requiring use of the Codex harness to operate if this was paired with model-level limitations on using specific tools to spawn sub-agents.
Or maybe not so obvious to you.
> Raising only because others cited concerns this might cause issues in personal harness contexts. It doesn't.
It literally cannot.
> Obviously, I wasn't claiming that it would WORK for cross-model subagents
I know, but you were questioning (before investigating) if maybe it did, which I'm saying should have been obvious it wouldn't, if you had understand how this was encrypted.
> requiring use of the Codex harness to operate
Yes, if you want to use Sol + Ultra + sub-agents, you'd need to use the endpoints provided by OpenAI, as (again), the content is encrypted on OpenAI's side, it's not technically possible for other platforms to implement OpenAI's encryption.
And of course this doesn't impact anyone else not using Codex + Sol + Ultra + launching subagents, it's the specific combination that is "protected", not the individual pieces.
No? Again, obviously, the implicit question was whether personal harnesses would be broken due to a model layer bias or system response that pushed arbitrary subagent behavior to fail outside of the codex harness.
I think you don’t really understand how this works if you think the open source harness is all that’s manipulated to determine system behavior.