Route reasoning models to reasoning-aware provider clients so reasoning_content round-trips #101
Open
opened 2026-08-04 10:00:15 +00:00 by CoreRasurae
·
0 comments
No Branch/Tag Specified
master
tdd/m1-inline-sandbox-import-restriction
tdd/m1-pure-graph-parallel-node-gate
feature/m1-inline-code-sandboxed-file-access
feature/m2-reasoning-model-provider-support
feature/skill-package-support
feature/76-budget-pre-flight
feature/17-public-api
feature/m1-registry-http-client
master-backup
No results found.
Labels
Clear labels
auto/blocked-by-deps
auto/ci-timeout
auto/claimed-implementer
auto/claimed-merge
auto/claimed-reviewer
auto/driver-down
auto/invariant-violation
auto/last-attempt-tier-0
auto/last-attempt-tier-1
auto/last-attempt-tier-2
auto/last-attempt-tier-min
Automation Tracking
auto/needs-conflict-resolution
auto/needs-implementer
auto/postmortem
auto/ready-to-merge
auto/restart-throttled
auto/revert
auto/sentinel
auto/stale-inactivity
auto/unstable
Blocked
Needs Feedback
Signed-off: Owner
Signed-off: Scrum Master
Signed-off: Tech Lead
Spike
PR blocked by an open issue dependency. Operator must close the dep (or remove the dependency link) before the merge driver can act. Auto-cleared by merge_drive when no open deps remain.
Most recent merge cycle hit CI timeout. Driver excludes this PR while last merge_cycle row is < 30 min old; label persists thereafter as visible history.
Currently being processed by an implementer worker.
Currently being processed by the merge driver.
Currently being processed by a reviewer worker.
Merge driver heartbeat stale; pipeline halted. Closed automatically on next clean tick.
Detected master commit violating the strict merge invariant. Tracked as an issue (not a PR label); kept here for label completeness.
In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier 0 slot (`tier-0`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml.
In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier 1 slot (`tier-1`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml.
In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier 2 slot (`tier-2`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml. Gated behind IMPLEMENTER_ESCALATION_TIER2_ENABLED.
In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier -1 slot (`tier-min`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml. Suffix is ``-min`` (not ``--1``) so the Forgejo UI reads naturally.
Tracking issues used by the AI Automation system for agents to communicate and report.
Rebase conflict needs LLM conflict-resolver.
Failing CI needs implementer attention.
Documenting a driver incident or rollback.
Reviewer has APPROVED this PR and no later REQUEST_CHANGES is outstanding. The merge driver requires this label to even consider a PR for merging. Set by the reviewer worker on APPROVE; cleared on REQUEST_CHANGES.
Train repeatedly lost master-tempo races. Driver excludes via merge_cycle until cooldown elapses; label persists as visible history.
Revert PR backing out an invariant violation. Fast-tracked through the merge driver.
Sentinel PR duplicated from upstream into a personal fork by tools/duplicate_prs_to_fork.py for pipeline testing. Lives only in the fork; the canonical pipeline never sees it.
No implementer activity for N days. Flagged for human review. Auto-cleared on next push to head branch.
Repeatedly fails on current master (>= 3 ci-fail-on-rebased-sha releases in 12 h). Excluded from driver until human triage.
A ticket in a blocked state and unable to complete until some other task is completed first.
Bounty
$100
A bounty of $100 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$1000
A bounty of $1000 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$10000
A bounty of $10000 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$20
A bounty of $20 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$2000
A bounty of $2000 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$250
A bounty of $250 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$50
A bounty of $50 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$500
A bounty of $500 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$5000
A bounty of $5000 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$750
A bounty of $750 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
MoSCoW
Could have
Could have feature in order to satisfy the epic/legendary.
MoSCoW
Must have
Must have feature in order to satisfy the epic/legendary.
MoSCoW
Should have
Should have feature in order to satisfy the epic/legendary.
There are questions in the ticket that can not be completed until the project owner provides clarity.
Points
1
1 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
13
13 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
2
2 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
21
21 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
3
3 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
34
34 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
5
5 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
55
55 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
8
8 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
88
88 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Priority
Backlog
This ticket has backlogged priority and is not to be worked on yet
Priority
CI Blocker
Critical priority issue that blocks CI/CD pipeline and prevents PR merges
Priority
Critical
The priority is critical
Priority
High
The priority is high
Priority
Low
The priority is low
Priority
Medium
The priority is medium
When an epic or legendary is in review it must be signed off by owner, tech lead, and scrum master before being marked as completed.
When an epic or legendary is in review it must be signed off by owner, tech lead, and scrum master before being marked as completed.
When an epic or legendary is in review it must be signed off by owner, tech lead, and scrum master before being marked as completed.
A ticket for learning a tool or technology that is needed to be able to do future planning and design.
State
Completed
The ticket has been fully implemented, completed, and merged with the source code. This label should only be applied once a ticket is closed.
State
Duplicate
A ticket that represents the same content as an existing ticket.
State
In Progress
A ticket that is actively being developed.
State
In Review
A ticket that has had some code completed to implement but is waiting to pass peer review and is not yet merged in.
State
Paused
This ticket's work started but wasn't finished. It's on hold (likely in a feature branch) and will be resumed later, either due to a blocker or a delay.
State
Unverified
All new tickets start in this state. A developer may set it to show the ticket is unverified. This means we haven't agreed to work on it. It will either move to a verified state or be closed as wontdo.
State
Verified
The issue has been verified by a developer as legitimate. It will be worked on and verified tickets are now considered part of the backlog.
State
Wont Do
This ticket has been decided it wont be done. This may mean the bug has been determined to not be real (cant verify) or the feature is one we have decided we dont want to adopt.
Type
Automation
Any edits or discussion about the AI automated coding system.
Type
Bug
Something that doesnt work as intended.
Type
Discussion
Anytime a ticket represents a discussion about a subject and doesnt fall into one of the other categories.
Type
Documentation
An error or improvement needed in the documentation.
Type
Epic
Any first tier epic. That is, an epic which contains only issues as children and will not have sub-epics.
Type
Feature
Some new functionality not present.
Type
Legendary
A type of Epic which will contain other Epics.
Type
Refactor
A code change that restructures existing code without changing its external behavior.
Type
Support
Someone needs help using the project.
Type
Task
A generic task that doesnt fit into the other type categories.
Type
Testing
Work exclusively focusing on fixing or expanding testing.
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
aditya (Aditya Chhabra)
aleenaumair (Aleena Umair)
brent.edwards (Brent Edwards)
CoreRasurae (Luis Mendes)
drew (Drew Morris)
eugen.thaci (Eugen Thaci)
freemo (Jeffrey Phillips Freeman)
HAL9000 (HAL 9000)
HAL9001 (HAL9001)
hamza.khyari (Hamza Khyari)
hurui200320 (Rui Hu)
justin.morris
khird (Kyle Hird)
org.cleveragents
Clear assignees
No Assignees
CoreRasurae
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Depends on
#106 feat(llm): route reasoning models to reasoning-aware provider clients
cleveragents/cleveractors-core
Reference: cleveragents/cleveractors-core#101
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
Delete Branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Metadata
feat(llm): route reasoning models to reasoning-aware provider clientsfeature/m2-reasoning-model-provider-supportBackground and context
The Actor Configuration Standard (§1.2) deliberately excludes "the internal
mechanics of LLM providers" from its scope, and ADR-2028 (Extended Provider
Routing) routes every non-native provider — including
openai_compatibleandevery named additional provider — through a bare
langchain_openai.ChatOpenAI(base_url=..., api_key=...)client(
cleveractors.agents.llm_client._build_from_credentials, at commit882336c).langchain-openai(currently 1.4.1) explicitly targets the official OpenAIAPI specification only. Its own module docstring states that non-standard
response fields added by third-party providers — specifically
reasoning_content— are not extracted or preserved, and recommends aprovider-specific subclass (e.g.
openai_compatible_reasoning) when pointingbase_urlat areasoning-capable provider.
As a result, when an
llmagent is pointed at a reasoning / "thinking"model through an OpenAI-compatible endpoint, the model's
reasoning_contentis silently dropped on both the response leg (
_convert_dict_to_message) andthe request leg (
_convert_message_to_dict, which only ever emitsrole/content/tool_calls). The multi-turn tool-call loop(
cleveractors.agents.llm.LLMAgent._execute_tool_loop) then replays thereturned
AIMessage— now stripped of its reasoning — back to the provider onthe follow-up call after a tool result. Providers that require the reasoning
block to be echoed back reject the request.
This issue tracks Option A of the diagnosis: route reasoning models to a
reasoning-aware provider client so
reasoning_contentround-trips correctly.Current behavior
Running an actor whose
llmagent usesprovider: openai_compatiblewith areasoning model (e.g.
deepseek-v4-flash-free) behind a reasoning-capableproxy fails on the first post-tool-call round with:
Confirmed diagnostics:
reasoning_contentappears in no logged LLM request or response — only inthe error — proving it is dropped end-to-end.
400, so per ADR-2032 D-8 it is notretried; it aborts the actor-graph execution and recurs on every attempt.
Expected behavior
llmagent configured with a reasoning / thinking model behind anOpenAI-compatible (or provider-specific) endpoint completes a multi-turn
tool-call loop without the
reasoning_content ... must be passed back400 error.
reasoning_content, it is preserved on the resultingAIMessageand re-sent on the assistant turn that precedes the subsequenttool result.
openai,anthropic,google) and fornon-reasoning models is unchanged.
Acceptance criteria
llmagent using a reasoning model through the reasoning-awarerouting path completes at least one tool-call → tool-result → follow-up
round with no
invalid_request_erroraboutreasoning_content.LLMAgent._execute_tool_loopafter a tool call includes thereasoning_contentreturned by the model (verified via a fake reasoningmodel in a Behave scenario).
request payloads to those produced before this change (no regression).
routing decision, and
docs/specification.mdis updated accordinglybefore implementation lands.
nox(all default sessions) is green andnox -s coverage_reportreports ≥ 97%.
Supporting information
882336c):cleveractors.agents.llm_client._build_from_credentials— routes everynon-native provider to
ChatOpenAI(base_url=...).cleveractors.agents.llm.LLMAgent._execute_tool_loop— appends thereturned
AIMessage(reasoning already stripped) before re-invoking.langchain-openai1.4.1BaseChatOpenAIdocstring — documents thatreasoning_contentis not extracted; recommendsChatDeepSeek/provider-specific subclasses.
work extends), ADR-2032 (retry scope — explains why the 400 is not
retried).
written and approved before implementation (ADR process). If the maintainer
prefers strict one-commit atomicity, this issue may be promoted to an Epic
with the ADR split into its own child issue. It also still needs to be linked
to an appropriate LLM/provider parent Epic during triage (mandatory-parent
rule).
Subtasks
docs/adr/ADR-NNNN-reasoning-aware-provider-routing.md)extending ADR-2028; submit for review; on approval update
docs/specification.md.(
langchain-deepseek/ChatDeepSeek) topyproject.toml.cleveractors.agents.llm_clientto select thereasoning-aware client for reasoning models / configured providers,
preserving the
reasoning_contentround-trip while leaving native andnon-reasoning paths unchanged.
LLMAgent._execute_tool_loopre-sendsreasoning_content(ensure
additional_kwargscarrying reasoning survive the replay).reasoning_contentis preserved acrossa tool-call turn using a fake reasoning model in
features/mocks/.through the new routing path.
nox -s coverage_report.nox(all default sessions) and fix any errors.Definition of Done
This issue is complete when:
Metadata exactly.
master, reviewed, and merged.