Post-plan-approval system message contradicts itself ("edits require manual approval" + "Proceed with implementing"), causing the model to stop instead of starting work
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 1/5
- Estimated time
- 1-3 hours
- Newbie friendliness
- 78/100
- Issue type
- Bug
- Clarity
- Clearly specified
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Tech stack
- typescript
- Domain
- cli
Research direction
Find the post-exit message generator under src/plan-mode/<...> and inspect the string returned after exit_plan_mode in interactive mode. Update the contradictory wording so it tells the model to begin immediately while describing edit approval as a UI step. Add or update a snapshot test to require "Begin implementing now" and reject "require manual approval".
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
Describe the bug
When a user approves a plan in plan mode (Shift+Tab -> approve, or
selecting "interactive" from the exit_plan_mode choice list), the CLI
emits the following confirmation as a tool result:
Plan approved! Exited plan mode.
You are now in interactive mode (edits require manual approval). Proceed with implementing the plan.
The two sentences contradict each other:
- "edits require manual approval" reads as a permission gate -- the
model must wait for the user to hand-approve each subsequent edit. - "Proceed with implementing the plan" instructs the model to start
work immediately in the same response.
In practice, capable models hedge: they output a short text-only
acknowledgement ("Ready to start implementing whenever you give the
word -- recommend kicking off with X") and stop, treating the
parenthetical as the operative gate. The user then has to send a
second message ("go", "start", "do it") to actually begin work, even
though they already approved the plan. This defeats the purpose of the
plan-approval gesture and breaks the documented workflow that says
plan approval IS the go-signal.
The interaction is not a custom-instruction issue. Even repos that
explicitly tell the model "approval = go, same turn, no text-only
sign-offs" hit this regularly because the CLI's own message is in
direct competition with the custom instruction, and the CLI's wording
arrives later in context (right before the model responds).
This belongs to the CLI: the message is generated by the CLI's plan
mode, not by the model or the upstream service. Fixing the wording is
a one-line change.
Affected version
GitHub Copilot CLI 1.0.48
Steps to reproduce the behavior
-
Start an interactive session in any repo:
copilot(orcopilot --resume <id>). -
Enter plan mode (Shift+Tab) and ask the model to draft a plan, e.g.
"plan how to refactor X". -
After the model writes a plan and calls
exit_plan_mode, choose
the "interactive" action when prompted (the most common
approval-with-no-autopilot path). -
Observe the tool-result text the CLI returns to the model:
Plan approved! Exited plan mode. You are now in interactive mode (edits require manual approval). Proceed with implementing the plan. -
Observe the model's next response. In most cases it is text-only:
a one-paragraph "ready to start, recommend kicking off with X"
sign-off, with NO tool calls. The user then has to send a second
message ("go" / "start") to make work actually begin.
Reproduces sometimes with Claude Opus 4.7 in this CLI version.
Expected behavior
The post-exit message should give the model exactly one unambiguous
instruction. Either:
-
(preferred) drop the parenthetical and say only:
Plan approved. Begin implementing now in this same response. The
user has already approved; do not pause for further confirmation.
Each individual edit will still surface for manual approval through
the normal interactive-mode UI.This makes the contract explicit (approval-at-plan-time, edit-by-edit
UI gates afterward) and removes the conflicting "wait" reading. -
or keep manual-edit-approval semantics but make them clearly
about the UI layer, not the model's behaviour:Plan approved. Start implementing now. Individual edits will be
shown to the user for approval through the interactive UI before
being applied -- you do not need to wait for confirmation in chat.
Either wording resolves the contradiction.
Additional context
(Windows PowerShell 7.6.1 on Windows NT 10.0.26200.0.)
Environment:
- Logs: not attached -- this is a wording/UX bug reproducible from any
fresh session, no debug log adds signal. Happy to attach a session
bundle on request (copilot debug-logs --session a34a11f1-5abd-41d0-9a83-1ef76611b062). - Operating system: Windows 11 (NT 10.0.26200).
- CPU architecture: x86_64.
- Terminal emulator: Windows Terminal.
- Shell: PowerShell 7.6.1.
- CLI version: 1.0.48.
Why this is a CLI bug, not a model bug or a custom-instruction bug:
- The model is following the literal text the CLI hands it. The CLI is
the speaker. - The wording is shipped in the CLI binary -- it is not user-editable
via custom instructions or settings. - Custom instructions that try to override it ("approval = go, same
turn") fight against a directly-contradicting tool-result that
arrives mid-turn, after the rule has already been processed. The
rule loses about half the time even when it is explicit.
Proposed fix (one line, src/plan-mode/<...> -- replace the whole
"You are now in interactive mode" sentence):
// Before
return 'Plan approved! Exited plan mode.\n\nYou are now in interactive mode (edits require manual approval). Proceed with implementing the plan.';
// After
return 'Plan approved! Begin implementing now in this same response. Individual edits will surface for the user via the normal interactive-mode UI; do not pause for chat confirmation.';
Regression guard suggestion: a snapshot test that asserts the
post-exit_plan_mode tool-result string contains "Begin implementing
now" and does NOT contain the substring "require manual approval".
That single assertion locks the fix and catches accidental reverts.
Adjacent issue (separate report worthwhile): the choice list for
exit_plan_mode actions could surface a one-line preview of the
post-exit message per choice, so users picking "interactive" vs
"autopilot_fleet" know what behavioural contract they are accepting.
- Dominant language
- Shell
- Stars
- 11.2k
- Forks
- 1.9k
- Avg merge
- 14h 16m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 6
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from github/copilot-cli
-
triage
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 72/100
github/copilot-cli#4848 ·
-
area:agents area:mcp
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 72/100
github/copilot-cli#4729 ·
-
area:sessions
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 72/100
github/copilot-cli#4712 ·
-
triage
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 75/100
github/copilot-cli#4638 ·
-
Expose large_output_file_path on TaskShellProgress so clients can read complete shell-task output Openarea:tools
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 78/100
github/copilot-cli#4630 · 1 comment ·
All issues in github/copilot-cli
Similar issues
-
docs(agents): strengthen the no-backslash-escaped-backticks rule with an issue-creation example Open
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 92/100
-
package-update
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 76/100
oSoWoSo/vOid_Community_repOsitory#148 · 1 comment ·
-
chore
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 91/100
alunduil/alunduil-chezmoi#792 ·
-
area: compat bug
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 72/100
-
zenhub-dev
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 68/100
OpenLiberty/ci.docker#747 ·