bug: claude-haiku-5-5 rejects thinking.type.enabled (400) — ADAPTIVE_THINKING omits haiku

Beginne mit dem ADAPTIVE_THINKING-Ausdruck und der toModel-Logik in index.ts und sieh dir anschließend die vorhandenen Fälle in test.ts für Modellkompatibilitätsflags an. Prüfe, wie die Haiku-5-Modell-IDs zur Familienregel passen, und stelle sicher, dass ältere Haiku-4-IDs davon ausgeschlossen bleiben. Als abgeschlossen gilt die Aufgabe, wenn der betroffene Katalogeintrag forceAdaptiveThinking erhält und ein Regressionstest die Grenze abdeckt.

Versions

• @commandcode/pi-commandcode-provider 0.3.0
• @earendil-works/pi-coding-agent 1.2.0 / @earendil-works/pi-ai 1.2.0 (as bundled by gentle-shell 4.3.0)
• Linux x64

Problem

claude-haiku-5-5 cannot be used with any thinking level: every completion fails with HTTP 400, because the model is not marked as requiring adaptive thinking and pi therefore sends the budget form of the parameter. Without a thinking level the same model answers normally.

$ pi -p --model command-code/claude-haiku-5-5:off "reply with exactly: ok"
ok

$ pi -p --model command-code/claude-haiku-5-5:high "reply with exactly: ok"
400 {"type":"error","error":{"type":"invalid_request_error","message":"{\"type\":\"error\",\"error\":{\"type\":\"invalid_request_error\",\"message\":\"\\\"thinking.type.enabled\\\" is not supported for this model. Use \\\"thinking.type.adaptive\\\" and \\\"output_config.effort\\\" to control thinking behavior.\",\"request_id\":\"req_011CgSP7SdnP43dgNJZFsstt\"}"}}

Same request directly against the gateway, to remove pi from the picture:

# budget form — what pi sends today for this model
$ curl -s $BASE/v1/messages -d '{"model":"claude-haiku-5-5","max_tokens":512,
  "thinking":{"type":"enabled","budget_tokens":1024},
  "messages":[{"role":"user","content":"deci ok"}]}'
HTTP 400  "thinking.type.enabled" is not supported for this model.
          Use "thinking.type.adaptive" and "output_config.effort" ...

# adaptive form — accepted, returns a thinking block plus text
$ curl -s $BASE/v1/messages -d '{"model":"claude-haiku-5-5","max_tokens":512,
  "thinking":{"type":"adaptive"},"output_config":{"effort":"high"},
  "messages":[{"role":"user","content":"deci ok"}]}'
HTTP 200  {"content":[{"type":"thinking",...},{"type":"text",...}],
           "usage":{"output_tokens":177,"output_tokens_details":{"thinking_tokens":84}}}

Root cause

index.ts:84 decides which models need the adaptive form:

const ADAPTIVE_THINKING = /(opus[-.](4[-.]6|4[-.]7|4[-.]8|5)|sonnet[-.](4[-.]6|5)|fable[-.]5|mythos[-.]5)/;

and index.ts:137 is the only place that sets the flag:

} else if (api === "anthropic-messages" && ADAPTIVE_THINKING.test(item.id)) {
    model.compat = { forceAdaptiveThinking: true };
}

haiku is absent, so claude-haiku-5-5 never receives forceAdaptiveThinking, and pi-ai branches on exactly that flag (pi-ai, dist/api/anthropic-messages.js):

• :761 — with the flag: mapThinkingLevelToEffort, and :989 sends thinking: {type: "adaptive", display} plus output_config: {effort}.
• :771 / :996 — without it: adjustMaxTokensForThinking and thinking: {type: "enabled", budget_tokens}, which this model rejects.

The catalog entry is otherwise fine: claude-haiku-5-5, context_length: 1000000, supported_endpoints: ["/messages"] — the correct anthropic-messages route is chosen; only the thinking form is wrong.

Suggested fix

Add 5.x haiku to the family list, one alternative:

const ADAPTIVE_THINKING = /(opus[-.](4[-.]6|4[-.]7|4[-.]8|5)|sonnet[-.](4[-.]6|5)|haiku[-.]5|fable[-.]5|mythos[-.]5)/;

haiku[-.]5 does not match claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, so the older model keeps the budget form it accepts today. I verified the behaviour above on claude-haiku-5-5; I could not verify claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 directly, because it answers 403 MODEL_NOT_IN_PLAN on my plan before any thinking negotiation, so the scoping of the regex rests on the documented family rule (adaptive from Opus 4.6 / Sonnet 4.6 / Fable 5 onward) rather than on a run.

A test.ts case asserting model.compat?.forceAdaptiveThinking per catalog family would catch both this gap and its mirror: a family that gets the flag but still wants the budget form.

Related

#1 is in the same function (toModel) and the same area of the model object, but a different symptom (thinking levels max/minimal from a missing thinkingLevelMap); it does not cover this model or this parameter form.