Skip to content

Follow-ups: offer non-interrupting mid-turn delivery like Claude Code CLI Enter #23680

Closed

Description

@thomasdvd

Problem

I want to add instructions while an agent is working without stopping its current tool calls and without waiting for the entire run to finish. In Claude Code CLI, pressing Enter supports this: the message is delivered after the current tool calls finish, within the same ongoing turn.

In T3, the user-facing choice between Steer and Queue does not give me a clearly equivalent behavior. Queue waits until the run finishes; Steer is an immediate delivery request whose effects depend on the provider and timing. This makes it difficult to know whether adding a message will preserve the work already in progress.

Example workflow

  1. Ask an agent to investigate and implement task A.
  2. While it is working, send: "Keep working on A. Also launch a second asynchronous subagent for task B and coordinate both."
  3. I want the parent to read that addition at its next safe tool boundary, launch B, and continue coordinating A and B.
  4. I do not want to interrupt an in-flight operation just to add this instruction, or wait until A's entire run ends before B can start.

The reported session showed the follow-up messages labeled Steer. That screenshot establishes the selected delivery mode, not that the original task or a subagent was actually cancelled. No deterministic reproduction of lost work is claimed here.

Expected behavior

Provide a clearly named non-interrupting mid-turn delivery option, or make the equivalent existing behavior discoverable:

  • Let the current tool-call batch finish normally.
  • Deliver pending follow-up messages before the next model request in the active turn, rather than waiting for the whole run to finish.
  • Preserve running subagents and background work.
  • Keep this behavior distinct from an explicit immediate interrupt and from an after-run queue.
  • Explain the delivery timing and provider limitations in the composer/settings so "Steer" does not imply the same semantics across providers.

This is about message delivery. It does not require the application to guarantee that a model follows every task instruction.

Evidence and qualifications

Related reports

Environment

T3 server 0.1.2-nightly.20261022.3512, macOS arm64. Server version was read from the connected T3 environment on 2026-10-22. The screenshot does not establish the parent thread's provider/model. No browser automation or controlled provider reproduction was run for this report.

Activity

  1. locked and limited conversation to collaborators on Oct 24, 2026
  2. converted this issue into a discussion #24399 on Oct 24, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions