Skip to content

fix(mobile): tell same-name agents apart in Solo - #9321

Open
loganj wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
loganj/mobile-solo-agent-names
Open

loganj wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
loganj/mobile-solo-agent-names

Conversation

@loganj

@loganj loganj commented Nov 10, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Summary

In Solo, two agents with the same name looked identical: the agent picker, the new-chat draft ("Message Atlas"), the chat header and its agent switcher, and the "working" label all showed the raw name. Now they use the same disambiguated labels as the rest of the app, so same-name agents read differently everywhere in Solo, and one agent reads the same in every place.

Related issue

None found.

Testing

Widget tests open the picker and header with two same-name agents, switch between them, and archive one (the remaining agent goes back to its plain name). A focused test covers which name Solo shows. Each fails without its change.

Android emulator, local relay, fictional names. Two live agents are both named Helper; Atlas and Scout each have an archived namesake, which Solo already left out.

New Solo chat › Choose an agent: two agents named Helper

Before After

New-chat draft with one Helper picked

Before After

Chat settings › Agent row of an existing Solo chat

Before After

Agent switcher opened from that row

Before After

Details

  • Names are compared only across the agents Solo offers. Archived agents are already left out of that list, so an archived namesake adds no qualifier.
  • Solo keeps showing the owner's own name for an agent (from their agent list) ahead of the agent's self-published profile name. A verified name still wins over both.
  • An agent with no name now shows the short npub, like every other picker, instead of a truncated hex key.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

loganj and others added 2 commits November 10, 2026 10:33
The Solo agent picker, the new-chat draft, the chat header and its
agent switcher, and the "working" label showed each agent's raw name,
so two agents with one name looked the same. They now use the shared
identity-names labels, scoped over the agents Solo offers. Archived
agents are already left out of that list, so an archived namesake adds
no qualifier.

Solo keeps showing the owner's inventory name ahead of the agent's own
profile name. An agent with no name now shows the short npub every
other picker shows.

Co-authored-by: Larry <627498bd4bd1f281a16431e3c6cce3b5c25b6692798c78672298aefbf2f8f8b5@buzz.block.builderlab.xyz>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Signed-off-by: Logan Johnson <loganj@squareup.com>
Solo shows the owner's inventory name ahead of an agent's cached profile
name, and a verified name ahead of both. The widget tests used one name
for both sources, so nothing caught losing that preference.

Co-authored-by: Larry <627498bd4bd1f281a16431e3c6cce3b5c25b6692798c78672298aefbf2f8f8b5@buzz.block.builderlab.xyz>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Signed-off-by: Logan Johnson <loganj@squareup.com>
@loganj
loganj marked this pull request as ready for review November 10, 2026 16:14
@loganj
loganj requested a review from a team as a code owner November 10, 2026 16:14
@loganj
loganj deployed to codex-review November 10, 2026 16:15 — with GitHub Actions Active
@github-actions github-actions Bot added the codex-security-review-current The posted Codex security review matches its recorded range. label Nov 10, 2026
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🔐 Codex Security Review

Note: This is an automated, security-focused review generated by Codex.
Use it as a supplement to human review; false positives are possible.

Scope

  • Exact PR diff: e2dc54e22fc113f298889d76c3acf674cb46db4b...fb9c8fc57b5cb10eb3cf5319f50cfb2d432fa159
  • Model: gpt-6.1-sol

💡 Click "edited" above to see earlier reviews for this PR.


Review Summary

Overall Risk: NONE

No concrete security, correctness, or reliability findings in the authorized PR range. Assistant labels remain presentation-only; public-key selection, ownership checks, and community scoping are preserved.

Findings

No concrete security, correctness, or reliability findings were identified.

Notes

  • Review used read-only source and history inspection. Builds and tests were not executed, as instructed.

Generated by Codex Security Review |
Requested by: @loganj |
Workflow run

This branch was successfully deployed

1 active deployment
codex-review — fb9c8fc5 Deployed Nov 10, 2026 by loganj via Run Codex Security Review #14255
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

codex-security-review-current The posted Codex security review matches its recorded range.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants