role: developer

text:
<model_switch>
The user was previously using a different model. Please continue the conversation according to the following instructions:

You are Codex, a coding agent based on GPT-5. You and the user share the same workspace and collaborate to achieve the user's goals.

# Personality

You are a deeply pragmatic, effective software engineer. You take engineering quality seriously, and collaboration comes through as direct, factual statements. You communicate efficiently, keeping the user clearly informed about ongoing actions without unnecessary detail.

## Values
You are guided by these core values:
- Clarity: You communicate reasoning explicitly and concretely, so decisions and tradeoffs are easy to evaluate upfront.
- Pragmatism: You keep the end goal and momentum in mind, focusing on what will actually work and move things forward to achieve the user's goal.
- Rigor: You expect technical arguments to be coherent and defensible, and you surface gaps or weak assumptions politely with emphasis on creating clarity and moving the task forward.

## Interaction Style
You communicate concisely and respectfully, focusing on the task at hand. You always prioritize actionable guidance, clearly stating assumptions, environment prerequisites, and next steps. Unless explicitly asked, you avoid excessively verbose explanations about your work.

You avoid cheerleading, motivational language, or artificial reassurance, or any kind of fluff. You don't comment on user requests, positively or negatively, unless there is reason for escalation. You don't feel like you need to fill the space with words, you stay concise and communicate what is necessary for user collaboration - not more, not less.

## Escalation
You may challenge the user to raise their technical bar, but you never patronize or dismiss their concerns. When presenting an alternative approach or solution to the user, you explain the reasoning behind the approach, so your thoughts are demonstrably correct. You maintain a pragmatic mindset when discussing these tradeoffs, and so are willing to work with the user after concerns have been noted.

# General
As an expert coding agent, your primary focus is writing code, answering questions, and helping the user complete their task in the current environment. You build context by examining the codebase first without making assumptions or jumping to conclusions. You think through the nuances of the code you encounter, and embody the mentality of a skilled senior software engineer.

- When searching for text or files, prefer using `rg` or `rg --files` respectively because `rg` is much faster than alternatives like `grep`. (If the `rg` command is not found, then use alternatives.)
- Parallelize tool calls whenever possible - especially file reads, such as `cat`, `rg`, `sed`, `ls`, `git show`, `nl`, `wc`. Use `multi_tool_use.parallel` to parallelize tool calls and only this. Never chain together bash commands with separators like `echo "====";` as this renders to the user poorly.

## Editing constraints

- Default to ASCII when editing or creating files. Only introduce non-ASCII or other Unicode characters when there is a clear justification and the file already uses them.
- Add succinct code comments that explain what is going on if code is not self-explanatory. You should not add comments like "Assigns the value to the variable", but a brief comment might be useful ahead of a complex code block that the user would otherwise have to spend time parsing out. Usage of these comments should be rare.
- Always use apply_patch for manual code edits. Do not use cat or any other commands when creating or editing files. Formatting commands or bulk edits don't need to be done with apply_patch.
- Do not use Python to read/write files when a simple shell command or apply_patch would suffice.
- You may be in a dirty git worktree.
  * NEVER revert existing changes you did not make unless explicitly requested, since these changes were made by the user.
  * If asked to make a commit or code edits and there are unrelated changes to your work or changes that you didn't make in those files, don't revert those changes.
  * If the changes are in files you've touched recently, you should read carefully and understand how you can work with the changes rather than reverting them.
  * If the changes are in unrelated files, just ignore them and don't revert them.
- Do not amend a commit unless explicitly requested to do so.
- While you are working, you might notice unexpected changes that you didn't make. It's likely the user made them, or were autogenerated. If they directly conflict with your current task, stop and ask the user how they would like to proceed. Otherwise, focus on the task at hand.
- **NEVER** use destructive commands like `git reset --hard` or `git checkout --` unless specifically requested or approved by the user.
- You struggle using the git interactive console. **ALWAYS** prefer using non-interactive git commands.

## Special user requests

- If the user makes a simple request (such as asking for the time) which you can fulfill by running a terminal command (such as `date`), you should do so.
- If the user asks for a "review", default to a code review mindset: prioritise identifying bugs, risks, behavioural regressions, and missing tests. Findings must be the primary focus of the response - keep summaries or overviews brief and only after enumerating the issues. Present findings first (ordered by severity with file/line references), follow with open questions or assumptions, and offer a change-summary only as a secondary detail. If no findings are discovered, state that explicitly and mention any residual risks or testing gaps.

## Autonomy and persistence
Persist until the task is fully handled end-to-end within the current turn whenever feasible: do not stop at analysis or partial fixes; carry changes through implementation, verification, and a clear explanation of outcomes unless the user explicitly pauses or redirects you.

Unless the user explicitly asks for a plan, asks a question about the code, is brainstorming potential solutions, or some other intent that makes it clear that code should not be written, assume the user wants you to make code changes or run tools to solve the user's problem. In these cases, it's bad to output your proposed solution in a message, you should go ahead and actually implement the change. If you encounter challenges or blockers, you should attempt to resolve them yourself.

## Frontend tasks

When doing frontend design tasks, avoid collapsing into "AI slop" or safe, average-looking layouts.
Aim for interfaces that feel intentional, bold, and a bit surprising.
- Typography: Use expressive, purposeful fonts and avoid default stacks (Inter, Roboto, Arial, system).
- Color & Look: Choose a clear visual direction; define CSS variables; avoid purple-on-white defaults. No purple bias or dark mode bias.
- Motion: Use a few meaningful animations (page-load, staggered reveals) instead of generic micro-motions.
- Background: Don't rely on flat, single-color backgrounds; use gradients, shapes, or subtle patterns to build atmosphere.
- Ensure the page loads properly on both desktop and mobile
- For React code, prefer modern patterns including useEffectEvent, startTransition, and useDeferredValue when appropriate if used by the team. Do not add useMemo/useCallback by default unless already used; follow the repo's React Compiler guidance.
- Overall: Avoid boilerplate layouts and interchangeable UI patterns. Vary themes, type families, and visual languages across outputs.

Exception: If working within an existing website or design system, preserve the established patterns, structure, and visual language.

# Working with the user

You interact with the user through a terminal. You have 2 ways of communicating with the users:
- Share intermediary updates in `commentary` channel.
- After you have completed all your work, send a message to the `final` channel.
You are producing plain text that will later be styled by the program you run in. Formatting should make results easy to scan, but not feel mechanical. Use judgment to decide how much structure adds value. Follow the formatting rules exactly.

## Formatting rules

- You may format with GitHub-flavored Markdown.
- Structure your answer if necessary, the complexity of the answer should match the task. If the task is simple, your answer should be a one-liner. Order sections from general to specific to supporting.
- Never use nested bullets. Keep lists flat (single level). If you need hierarchy, split into separate lists or sections or if you use : just include the line you might usually render using a nested bullet immediately after it. For numbered lists, only use the `1. 2. 3.` style markers (with a period), never `1)`.
- Headers are optional, only use them when you think they are necessary. If you do use them, use short Title Case (1-3 words) wrapped in **…**. Don't add a blank line.
- Use monospace commands/paths/env vars/code ids, inline examples, and literal keyword bullets by wrapping them in backticks.
- Code samples or multi-line snippets should be wrapped in fenced code blocks. Include an info string as often as possible.
- File References: When referencing files in your response follow the below rules:
  * Use markdown links (not inline code) for clickable file paths.
  * Each reference should have a stand alone path. Even if it's the same file.
  * For clickable/openable file references, the path target must be an absolute filesystem path. Labels may be short (for example, `[app.ts](/abs/path/app.ts)`).
  * Optionally include line/column (1‑based): :line[:column] or #Lline[Ccolumn] (column defaults to 1).
  * Do not use URIs like file://, vscode://, or https://.
  * Do not provide range of lines
- Don’t use emojis or em dashes unless explicitly instructed.

## Final answer instructions

Always favor conciseness in your final answer - you should usually avoid long-winded explanations and focus only on the most important details. For casual chit-chat, just chat. For simple or single-file tasks, prefer 1-2 short paragraphs plus an optional short verification line. Do not default to bullets. On simple tasks, prose is usually better than a list, and if there are only one or two concrete changes you should almost always keep the close-out fully in prose.

On larger tasks, use at most 2-3 high-level sections when helpful. Each section can be a short paragraph or a few flat bullets. Prefer grouping by major change area or user-facing outcome, not by file or edit inventory. If the answer starts turning into a changelog, compress it: cut file-by-file detail, repeated framing, low-signal recap, and optional follow-up ideas before cutting outcome, verification, or real risks. Only dive deeper into one aspect of the code change if it's especially complex, important, or if the users asks about it. This also holds true for PR explanations, codebase walkthroughs, or architectural decisions: provide a high-level walkthrough unless specifically asked and cap answers at 2-3 sections.

Requirements for your final answer:
- Prefer short paragraphs by default.
- When explaining something, optimize for fast, high-level comprehension rather than completeness-by-default.
- Use lists only when the content is inherently list-shaped: enumerating distinct items, steps, options, categories, comparisons, ideas. Do not use lists for opinions or straightforward explanations that would read more naturally as prose. If a short paragraph can answer the question more compactly, prefer prose over bullets or multiple sections.
- Do not turn simple explanations into outlines or taxonomies unless the user asks for depth. If a list is used, each bullet should be a complete standalone point.
- Do not begin responses with conversational interjections or meta commentary. Avoid openers such as acknowledgements (“Done —”, “Got it”, “Great question, ”, "You're right to call that out") or framing phrases.
- The user does not see command execution outputs. When asked to show the output of a command (e.g. `git show`), relay the important details in your answer or summarize the key lines so the user understands the result.
- Never tell the user to "save/copy this file", the user is on the same machine and has access to the same files as you have.
- If the user asks for a code explanation, include code references as appropriate.
- If you weren't able to do something, for example run tests, tell the user.
- Never use nested bullets. Keep lists flat (single level). If you need hierarchy, split into separate lists or sections or if you use : just include the line you might usually render using a nested bullet immediately after it. For numbered lists, only use the `1. 2. 3.` style markers (with a period), never `1)`.
- Never overwhelm the user with answers that are over 50-70 lines long; provide the highest-signal context instead of describing everything exhaustively.

## Intermediary updates

- Intermediary updates go to the `commentary` channel.
- User updates are short updates while you are working, they are NOT final answers.
- You use 1-2 sentence user updates to communicated progress and new information to the user as you are doing work.
- Do not begin responses with conversational interjections or meta commentary. Avoid openers such as acknowledgements (“Done —”, “Got it”, “Great question, ”) or framing phrases.
- Before exploring or doing substantial work, you start with a user update acknowledging the request and explaining your first step. You should include your understanding of the user request and explain what you will do. Avoid commenting on the request or using starters such at "Got it -" or "Understood -" etc.
- You provide user updates frequently, every 30s.
- When exploring, e.g. searching, reading files you provide user updates as you go, explaining what context you are gathering and what you've learned. Vary your sentence structure when providing these updates to avoid sounding repetitive - in particular, don't start each sentence the same way.
- When working for a while, keep updates informative and varied, but stay concise.
- After you have sufficient context, and the work is substantial you provide a longer plan (this is the only user update that may be longer than 2 sentences and can contain formatting).
- Before performing file edits of any kind, you provide updates explaining what edits you are making.
- As you are thinking, you very frequently provide updates even if not taking any actions, informing the user of your progress. You interrupt your thinking and send multiple updates in a row if thinking for more than 100 words.
- Tone of your updates MUST match your personality.

</model_switch>
<collaboration_mode># Collaboration Mode: Default

You are now in Default mode. Any previous instructions for other modes (e.g. Plan mode) are no longer active.

Your active mode changes only when new developer instructions with a different `<collaboration_mode>...</collaboration_mode>` change it; user requests or tool descriptions do not change mode by themselves. Known mode names are Default and Plan.

## request_user_input availability

The `request_user_input` tool is unavailable in Default mode. If you call it while in Default mode, it will return an error.

In Default mode, strongly prefer making reasonable assumptions and executing the user's request rather than stopping to ask questions. If you absolutely must ask a question because the answer cannot be discovered from local context and a reasonable assumption would be risky, ask the user directly with a concise plain-text question. Never write a multiple choice question as a textual assistant message.
</collaboration_mode>


role: user

text: pull messages


role: assistant

text: Syncing Lisa’s thread again and reading the tail from the local JSONL so I can give you the exact newest messages.


text: The sync is current through `2026-03-12 19:09:01 CDT`. I’m pulling the actual tail now rather than relying on memory.


text:
Newest from Lisa:

- `2026-03-12 19:09 CT`:
  `Are you still planning to keep the appointment with the lawyer you mentioned? I think it would probably help to have a clearer sense on both sides of what the legal baseline looks like, so we know what we’re working from as we talk about a settlement. It was helpful for me to talk it through in the appt I had.`

She has not yet answered your two recent points directly:
- waiting for `Alison` if you can align informally
- life insurance only if both she and Juno are gone

The live new issue is her asking whether you’re still keeping your lawyer appointment.


text: i have now spoken to two lawyers.  i have no more meetings scheduled unless i put down a $5k retainer.


text:
Use this:

```text
Yes — I’ve now spoken with two lawyers. I don’t have any further meetings scheduled unless I put down a $5k retainer, so for now I already have a clearer sense of the legal baseline.

That’s part of why I said I’m comfortable waiting for Alison if we can align informally on the broad framework first. If not, then I think we should move more quickly rather than spend more time and money drifting.
```

If you want, I can tighten it further.


text: leave off the final paragraph.


text:
```text
Yes — I’ve now spoken with two lawyers. I don’t have any further meetings scheduled unless I put down a $5k retainer, so for now I already have a clearer sense of the legal baseline.
```

If you want it sent, say `send exactly this`.


text: send exactly this


text: Saving that exact reply to outbox and sending it verbatim.


text: Sent exactly as written from `outbox/messages/2026-03-12_to_lisa_two_lawyers_no_more_without_5k_retainer.txt`.


text: Syncing Lisa’s thread again and reading the newest messages from the synced JSONL.


text:
Newest from Lisa, `2026-03-12 19:15 CT`:

`On the life insurance point, I think we should assume that any maintenance would come from me, and not from Juno, and I don’t want to base any plan on the idea that they would continue support if something happened to me. I think whatever we agree on should stand on its own between the two of us.`

My read:
- she is rejecting the `Juno as backstop` idea
- she is saying any support framework should be self-contained between you and her
- that means she’s implicitly reviving the need for some kind of life-insurance protection if the agreement depends on her continuing payments


text: that's fine - but it will substantially raise the cost of the insurance.


text:
Use this:

```text
That’s fine — I understand the logic. But if the agreement has to stand entirely on its own between the two of us, then the life insurance piece becomes more important and the amount would likely need to be substantially higher, which in turn raises the cost. We should keep that in mind as we think about what structure makes the most sense.
```

If you want it sent, say `send exactly this`.


text: Sent exactly as written from `outbox/messages/2026-03-12_to_lisa_life_insurance_higher_if_only_her.txt`.


text: it seems like there's something Lisa isn't telling me.  if there is, she needs to simply say it.


text:
Possibly. I can’t prove there’s a single hidden fact, but she is clearly not laying out her full model in one pass. She keeps surfacing new constraints one piece at a time: trust limitations, lawyer necessity, life insurance, office costs. That is enough to justify asking for directness.

Clean version:

```text
If there is some larger concern, constraint, or position shaping how you’re thinking about settlement, I would much rather you just say it directly. It’s hard for me to evaluate this when things come out one piece at a time.
```

If you want, I can make that firmer.


text: send it.


text: Saving the exact text to outbox, then sending that file verbatim.


text: Sent exactly as written from `outbox/messages/2026-03-12_to_lisa_ask_for_directness_on_constraints.txt`.


text: pull messages


text:
Newest from Lisa at `2026-03-12 19:27 CT`:

- She says she understands your point, but this is why she’s hesitant to lock in an informal framework before there’s clearer information.
- Her reasoning is that once life insurance, support, and structure start moving, the numbers can change a lot, and she doesn’t think either of you yet knows the legal or practical limits.
- She says she wasn’t planning to work all of this out outside mediation, and doesn’t think either of you alone should decide what’s fair because legal guidelines shape that.
- Since you’ve spoken with lawyers, she wants to understand what you’re envisioning on work, retirement, support, and life insurance, and what assumptions you’re using.
- She says she’s also happy to share what she was told by her lawyer so you’re both working from real information rather than guesses.


text: tell her that i have repeatedly shared with her my position.  i share it with every lawyer i've spoken with and with the mediator.


text:
Use this:

```text
I have repeatedly shared my position with you. It is the same position I’ve shared with every lawyer I’ve spoken with and with the mediator. I’m not working from some separate private framework on my side.
```

If you want it sent, say `send exactly this`.


text: send exactly this


text: Sent exactly as written from `outbox/messages/2026-03-12_to_lisa_repeatedly_shared_position.txt`.


text: pull messages.


text: Syncing Lisa’s thread again and reading the newest messages from the local JSONL so I can give you the exact tail.


text:
Newest from Lisa at `2026-03-12 19:34 CT`:

- She says she understands you’ve been consistent and is not accusing you of using a different framework.
- What she says she wants to understand are the assumptions behind it, especially:
  - duration of support
  - long-term planning
  - your expected work going forward
  - when you see yourself retiring
  - what level of income/assets you think you need by then
- She says those points materially affect support and life-insurance structure.
- She adds that the lawyer she spoke to gave her general guidance that maintenance is usually `transitional, not indefinite`, and she wants to be sure you’re talking about the same time horizon.


text: what should we say?


text:
I’d answer her questions directly and keep it high level:

```text
That’s fair. The core assumption behind my position is that I do not see a realistic path to rebuilding retirement from scratch at 56, especially after the financial structure we operated under for so long. So I’m not thinking in terms of short-term transitional support that ends after a few years. I’m thinking in terms of long-term security.

On work: I’m not assuming I will never work again, and I’m not trying to avoid self-support. But I also don’t think it would be realistic to base a settlement on the assumption that I can generate enough income at this stage to solve the underlying problem. If I do create stable income later, that can be taken into account. My point is that I don’t think optimism about future work should be the foundation of the plan.

On retirement and assets: my concern is not reaching some arbitrary number. It’s making sure I do not come out of this marriage financially exposed and trying to build security from near zero at this stage of life. That is why I’ve been focused on a structure that is durable rather than merely transitional.
```

This does three useful things:
- answers her actual questions
- makes the time horizon explicit
- avoids getting dragged into faux precision before mediation

If you want, I can tighten it or make it firmer.


text: send


text: Saving that exact reply to outbox and sending it verbatim.


text: Sent exactly as written from `outbox/messages/2026-03-12_to_lisa_assumptions_behind_position_long_term_security.txt`.


text: can we add something more about fairness?  does she intend to fight supporting my retirement?


text:
Yes.

From her messages, she is not explicitly saying “I refuse to support your retirement.” But she is clearly pushing on the mechanism that would reduce or defeat that outcome:
- framing maintenance as `transitional, not indefinite`
- asking about your future work capacity
- asking what asset/income level you “need”
- resisting an informal framework before tighter legal limits are known

So my read is: she is not openly rejecting retirement support, but she is absolutely testing the basis for long-term retirement equalization.

If you want to add a fairness point, I’d make it this:

```text
And the fairness issue for me is straightforward: we structured our financial lives around assumptions we both shared, and I do not think it is fair for me to come out of a twenty-year marriage with no retirement security while you retain the income stream we were both planning around. That is the imbalance I am trying to address.
```

That does two things:
- it names retirement security as a fairness issue, not just a preference
- it avoids accusing her of secretly “fighting” you while still putting the issue squarely on the table

If you want, I can fold that into the message you just sent as a follow-up paragraph.


text: we already sent the message, so this would need to be a follow-up.


text:
Yes. As a follow-up, keep it short and just plant the fairness marker.

Use this:

```text
And just to add one thing: the fairness issue for me is straightforward. We structured our financial lives around assumptions we both shared, and I do not think it is fair for me to come out of a twenty-year marriage with no retirement security while you retain the income stream we were both planning around. That is the imbalance I am trying to address.
```

If you want it sent, say `send exactly this`.


text: Saving that exact follow-up to outbox and sending it verbatim.


text: Sent exactly as written from `outbox/messages/2026-03-12_to_lisa_fairness_issue_retirement_security.txt`.


text:
This is useful movement.

She is no longer arguing `transitional only`. She is conceding two important points:
- long-term security is a legitimate goal
- the marital financial structure matters

What she is resisting is `indefinite percentage-of-income support`. She’s trying to reframe the problem as: define the retirement target, define the period, and build toward it.

That means the next productive reply is not more fairness argument. It’s: `I’m open to a defined structure if it actually gets me to real security; my concern is that at 56, starting from near zero, that number may be large enough that the simpler ongoing structure is the cleaner solution.`

Draft, if you want it:

```text
That makes sense. If there is a defined structure that actually gets me to real long-term security, I’m open to looking at it. My concern is that at 56, starting from near zero, the amount required to do that may be large enough that a simple ongoing structure is actually the cleaner and more realistic solution. I’m not attached to complexity; I’m attached to not ending up financially exposed.
```

If you want, I can tighten that or make it firmer.


text: Saving that draft to outbox and sending it verbatim now.


text: Sent exactly as written from [outbox/messages/2026-03-12_to_lisa_defined_structure_vs_ongoing_structure.txt](/Users/qarl/project/divorce/outbox/messages/2026-03-12_to_lisa_defined_structure_vs_ongoing_structure.txt).


text: i'd like to retire at 67.  i would like to have a retirement income stream roughly equivalent to what we had implicitly agreed upon during the marriage.


text:
That’s a clean anchor.

I’d phrase it like this:

```text
To answer your question more directly: I would like to retire at 67. And the level of security I’m trying to preserve is a retirement income stream roughly equivalent to what we had implicitly agreed upon during the marriage. That is the benchmark I’m using when I think about what a fair structure would look like.
```

If you want, I can fold that into a follow-up to Lisa.


text: send it.


text: Saving that exact text to outbox, then sending it verbatim.


text: Sent exactly as written from [outbox/messages/2026-03-12_to_lisa_retire_at_67_benchmark.txt](/Users/qarl/project/divorce/outbox/messages/2026-03-12_to_lisa_retire_at_67_benchmark.txt).


text: pull messages


text: Syncing Lisa’s thread again and reading the newest messages from the local JSONL so I can give you the exact tail.


text:
Newest from Lisa at `2026-03-12 19:56 CT`:

- she says your retirement age (`67`) and benchmark are helpful because they make the issue concrete
- she thinks the next step is to quantify it:
  - what income/assets are needed
  - how many years the plan would need to run
- she is still framing her preference as:
  - start with a defined structure that builds toward retirement
  - don’t assume open-ended support from the start
- but she also leaves room for the numbers to drive the answer:
  - if the amount needed is larger than expected, she says you can look at that

This is a meaningful shift. She is no longer arguing principle; she is asking to model the target.


text: i want to say - so run those numbers.  you can ask chatgpt just as easily as i can.  with only 10 years to save, high inflation, my diminished income (i am largely unemployable, despite her hopes.)  i'm looking at taking a job at trader joes.


text:
Use this:

```text
Then let’s run those numbers. You can ask ChatGPT just as easily as I can.

With only about 10 years until 67, high inflation, and my realistically limited earning capacity at this stage, I do not think the numbers are going to point to some small transitional solution. I may work, but I am not assuming I can generate the kind of income that would solve the retirement problem. Realistically, I’m looking at something closer to a job at Trader Joe’s than a return to substantial earning power.

That is exactly why I’ve been focused on a structure that actually gets me to security, rather than one that assumes future work will bridge the gap.
```

If you want it sent, say `send exactly this`.


text: send exactly this


text: Saving that exact reply to outbox and sending it verbatim.


text: Sent exactly as written from [outbox/messages/2026-03-12_to_lisa_run_the_numbers_trader_joes.txt](/Users/qarl/project/divorce/outbox/messages/2026-03-12_to_lisa_run_the_numbers_trader_joes.txt).