fix: Clarify Failed Code Artifact Registration

[danny-avila]

Summary

I clarified code-execution artifact guidance so failed executions are not confused with broken /mnt/data persistence, and tightened bash PTC output handling based on live testing.

• Added a shared failed-execution reminder when code references /mnt/data, so direct code, bash, and PTC errors tell the model that files from the failed call were not registered.
• Updated artifact path guidance to say failed executions do not register new files while preserving the /tmp scratch guidance.
• Tightened bash PTC jq guidance for JSON-string fields and arrays that may contain strings.
• Updated bash PTC examples to capture tool output with command substitution and printf before saving files, avoiding direct tool-call redirection that can create empty files.
• Added coverage for bash PTC error output and description guidance.

Change Type

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• Documentation update

Testing

• npx jest src/tools/__tests__/ProgrammaticToolCalling.test.ts src/tools/__tests__/BashExecutor.test.ts src/tools/__tests__/CodeApiAuthHeaders.test.ts --runInBand
• npx eslint src/tools/CodeExecutor.ts src/tools/BashExecutor.ts src/tools/ProgrammaticToolCalling.ts src/tools/BashProgrammaticToolCalling.ts src/tools/__tests__/ProgrammaticToolCalling.test.ts src/tools/__tests__/BashExecutor.test.ts src/tools/__tests__/CodeApiAuthHeaders.test.ts
• npx tsc --noEmit
• Live direct CodeAPI smoke against http://localhost:3112/v1/exec/programmatic verified failed /mnt/data writes include the registration reminder.
• Live Claude Sonnet 4.6 agent run verified bash PTC used command substitution for tool output, handled double-encoded JSON with jq, and did not treat failed-call files as persistent.

Test Configuration:

• Local agents worktree on danny-avila/code-error-persistence-guidance
• Existing repository dependencies via node_modules
• Local CodeAPI at http://localhost:3112/v1
• Provider credentials loaded from the main worktree .env

Checklist

• My code adheres to this project's style guidelines
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have made pertinent documentation changes
• My changes do not introduce new warnings
• I have written tests demonstrating that my changes are effective or that my feature works
• Local unit tests pass with my changes

[danny-avila]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Nice work!

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[danny-avila]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Another round soon, please!

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".