18:16:16codexCodex: I’ve confirmed the core planning path exists in both the orchestrator and the worker. I’m narrowing down the remaining details now: exactly how artifacts are persisted, what status transitions are encoded, and what the tests/UI currently verify.
18:16:42codexCodex: I’ve found strong test coverage in the application layer, but I still need to verify the user-facing piece. The remaining inspection is the UI detail view/status badge plus the queue/worker plumbing that drives those transitions.
18:16:53codexCodex: The queue is durable and the worker loop is minimal. I’m checking the isolation/persistence primitives next so the plan can call out the exact storage, timeout, and artifact pieces instead of describing them generically.
18:17:07codexCodex: The isolation and persistence pieces are already concrete: per-run filesystem workspaces, host-command timeouts/output caps, and artifact versioning on disk with DB metadata. I’m checking DI/config and the database shape now so the plan can state whether schema changes are actually required.
18:17:28codexCodex: A substantive gap has shown up: the real planning path is queued and persisted, but the Codex invocation itself is executed through the host command runner, not the container runner. I’m verifying that against the container abstraction and related tests before I turn it into a concrete plan item.
18:17:44codexCodex: The existing container abstraction is strong enough to host planning, but I need to see whether the current allowlist and image configuration are compatible with `git clone` plus `codex exec`. That will determine whether the plan needs a new planner image or command-policy update.
18:17:53codexCodex: The second likely gap is configuration: the container runner exists, but the configured image is the generic .NET SDK image, not an obvious Codex-capable planner image. I’m checking whether there is any planner-specific image configuration already present or whether that needs to be added to the plan explicitly.
18:18:15codexCodex: I want one more check on the web client boundary. If the UI is still backed by mock data anywhere, that changes the plan materially; if it’s already wired to real workflow status, frontend work may be limited to regression coverage.
18:18:33codexCodex: The containerization requirement is more nuanced than it looked: the current Docker runner hardcodes `--network none`, which is fine for mock test commands but incompatible with a real Codex CLI call to OpenAI. I’m checking the spec for whether planning is expected to use a separate image/network profile so the plan can be precise about that design choice.
18:19:45codexCodex: I’m validating one last behavioral detail before writing the plan: if workflow creation returns `Planning` without a `PLAN.md` yet, the current detail view needs to be able to render that intermediate state cleanly.
18:23:04codexCodex produced agent message (8,970 chars).
18:23:04codexCodex turn completed. Tokens: 1,003,914 in / 22,946 out.
18:23:04codexCodexPlan completed with exit code 0.
09:22:33systemWorkflow archived by dev-user.