Case: 20260423T190703Z__gptme__local_qwen3_8b__ollama__tool__shell_file
PASS Trajectory: recovered | Invoked: yes | Match: 100%
gptme --non-interactive --no-confirm --name gptme__local_qwen3_8b__ollama__tool__shell_file-warmup --system short --workspace /work/results/runs/20260423T190703Z/cases/gptme__local_qwen3_8b__ollama__tool__shell_file/workspace-warmup --tools shell --tool-format tool -m local/qwen3:8b 'Use the shell tool. Run exactly this command: printf '"'"'SHELL_OK\n'"'"' > shell-output.txt. Do not retry on error. If the command fails, reply only with FAIL. If the command succeeds, reply only with DONE. '
gptme --non-interactive --no-confirm --name gptme__local_qwen3_8b__ollama__tool__shell_file-measured --system short --workspace /work/results/runs/20260423T190703Z/cases/gptme__local_qwen3_8b__ollama__tool__shell_file/workspace --tools shell --tool-format tool -m local/qwen3:8b 'Use the shell tool. Run exactly this command: printf '"'"'SHELL_OK\n'"'"' > shell-output.txt. Do not retry on error. If the command fails, reply only with FAIL. If the command succeeds, reply only with DONE. '
Consistency: diverged
Use the shell tool. Run exactly this command: printf 'SHELL_OK\n' > shell-output.txt. Do not retry on error. If the command fails, reply only with FAIL. If the command succeeds, reply only with DONE.
SHELL_OK
SHELL_OK
Expected and observed match.
No structured session transcript found.
[gripprobe] process_started_at=2026-04-23T19:20:45+00:00
[19:20:47] Created config file at /work/results/runs/20260423T190703Z/cases/gptme__local_qwen3_8b__ollama__tool__shell_file/runtime/gptme/warmup/home/.config/gptme/config.toml
[19:20:47] WARNING Skipping all confirmation prompts. cli.py:265
Using model: local/qwen3:8b
Using logdir: /work/results/runs/20260423T190703Z/cases/gptme__local_qwen3_8b__ollama__tool__shell_file/runtime/gptme/warmup/state/gptme-logs/gptme__local_qwen3_8b__ollama__tool__shell_file-warmup
Using workspace: /work/results/runs/20260423T190703Z/cases/gptme__local_qwen3_8b__ollama__tool__shell_file/workspace-warmup
Skipped 2 hidden system messages, show with --show-hidden
--- ^^^ past messages ^^^ ---
User:
Use the shell tool. Run exactly this command: printf 'SHELL_OK\n' > shell-output.txt.
Do not retry on error.
If the command fails, reply only with FAIL.
If the command succeeds, reply only with DONE.
Assistant: Thinking...
Assistant:
<think>
<think>
Okay, the user wants me to use the shell tool to run the command 'printf 'SHELL_OK[/dim]n' > shell-output.txt'. Let me make sure I understand the task correctly. The command is straightforward: it's writing the string 'SHELL_OK' followed by a newline into a file named shell-output.txt.
First, I need to check if the shell tool is available. From the tools provided, the shell function is there, and it's supposed to execute commands in a stateful bash shell. The user also mentioned that if the command fails, I should reply only with FAIL, and if it succeeds, reply with DONE. So I shouldn't add any extra text, just the specified response.
I should verify that the command is correctly formatted. The printf command is correct here because it's used to print the string to the file. The redirection '>' will create the file or overwrite it if it exists. Since the user didn't mention any specific permissions or path issues, I assume the current directory is writable.
Wait, the user said to use absolute paths when referring to files. The command uses a relative path 'shell-output.txt'. Should I adjust that to an absolute path? The user's instruction says to use absolute paths when necessary, but the command as given uses a relative path. However, the user might have intended to create the file in the current working directory. Since the shell tool's working directory isn't specified, maybe it's better to use an absolute path to avoid any ambiguity. But the user's exact command is to run 'printf ... > shell-output.txt', so perhaps they expect the file to be created in the current directory.
But the user's note says to use absolute paths when referring to files. Hmm. Wait, the user's instruction says: "Always use absolute paths when referring to files, as relative paths can become invalid when the working directory changes." So in this case, the command uses a relative path. Should I modify it to an absolute path? The user's exact command is to run the given command, so maybe they expect the relative path. However, the user's note might be a general guideline. But the user's instruction says to run exactly the command provided. So I should execute the command as written, even if it uses a relative path.
Therefore, the correct action is to call the shell tool with the command 'printf 'SHELL_OK[/dim]n' > shell-output.txt'. If the command succeeds, respond with DONE; if it fails, respond with FAIL. Since the user said not to retry on error, I just need to execute the command once.
I should also check if there are any potential issues. For example, if the user doesn't have write permissions in the current directory, the command would fail. But since the user hasn't provided any context about the environment, I have to assume that the command is valid.
So, the next step is to generate the tool call with the specified command. The shell function's arguments should include the command as a string. The JSON object for the tool call would be {"name": "shell", "arguments": {"command": "printf 'SHELL_OK[/dim]n' > shell-output.txt"}}.
Wait, the shell tool's function definition says the arguments are a command string. So the command should be passed as a single string. The command includes the printf and redirection.
I think that's all. Now, I'll proceed to make the tool call.
</think>
</think>
@shell(call_89ot03nb): {"command":"printf 'SHELL_OK\\n' \u003e shell-output.txt"}
Preview
printf 'SHELL_OK\n' > shell-output.txt
System:
Ran command: `printf 'SHELL_OK\n' > shell-output.txt`
No output
[19:21:08] ERROR exception during auto-name auto_naming.py:100
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/opt/venvs/gptme/lib/python3.12/site-packages/gptme/util/auto_naming.py", line 97, in _generate_llm_name
summary_model_name = get_summary_model(current_model.provider)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/opt/venvs/gptme/lib/python3.12/site-packages/gptme/llm/models.py", line 576, in get_summary_model
raise ValueError(f"Provider {provider} did not have a summary model")
ValueError: Provider local did not have a summary model
Assistant: Thinking...
[19:21:20] INFO Reasoning content: Okay, the user wants me to create a concise conversation title based on the given rules. Let me look at the example titles they provided. They're all 2-4 words, capturing the main topic without extra text. llm_openai.py:321
The conversation here involves using a shell command. The user is instructing the assistant to run a specific command and handle success or failure. The main topic here is executing a shell command, specifically the 'printf' command to
create a file.
Looking at the examples, titles like "Python debugging help" or "Website creation task" are straightforward. Applying that to this scenario, the key elements are the shell command and the action of running it.
Possible titles could be "Shell command run" or "Execute shell task". But I need to check if there's a more precise way. The command is about writing to a file, but the main action is running the command.
Wait, the user's instruction is to run the command exactly as given. The title should reflect that action. Maybe "Shell command execution" or "Run shell command". But the examples have titles like "API integration guide" which is more
about the task than the action.
Alternatively, since the command is about writing to a file, maybe "File creation via shell". But that's 4 words. The examples have titles like "CSS layout issue" which is 3 words.
Hmm, the user's main point is to run the shell command. So "Shell command run" is concise and captures the main topic. Alternatively, "Execute shell command" is also 4 words. But maybe "Shell command task" is better. Wait, the examples
have "Website creation task" which is similar.
Wait, the user's instruction is to run the command, so the title should reflect that action. The command is to create a file, but the main topic is the shell command execution. So "Shell command run" or "Run shell command".
But the examples have titles that are more about the task, like "Python debugging help" which is about the problem. In this case, the task is to run the command. So "Shell command run" is 3 words. Alternatively, "Shell command task" is 3
words.
I think "Shell command run" is the best fit here. It's concise, captures the main action, and follows the example structure. Let me check the word count. "Shell command run" is three words, which is within the 2-4 word limit. Yes, that
works.
INFO Auto-generated conversation name: Shell command run chat.py:332
Assistant:
<think>
<think>
Okay, let me process what just happened. The user asked to run the command `printf 'SHELL_OK[/dim]n' > shell-output.txt` using the shell tool. I called the shell function with that command. The response from the tool was "Ran command: `printf 'SHELL_OK[/dim]n' > shell-output.txt`" and "No output".
Hmm, the user specified that if the command succeeds, I should reply only with DONE, and if it fails, reply with FAIL. Since there was no error message, maybe the command executed successfully. But the output is empty. Wait, the command is writing 'SHELL_OK' followed by a newline to the file. The shell tool's output says there was no output, which might mean the command ran without errors. However, the user might expect confirmation that the file was created and contains the expected content.
Wait, but the user's instruction was to run exactly that command and check the result. Since the shell tool's response didn't show any errors, perhaps the command succeeded. However, the user might need to verify the file's contents. But according to the user's instructions, after running the command, if it succeeds, I should reply with DONE. Since there's no error, I should assume success. But maybe the file wasn't created? Or maybe the shell tool's output doesn't show the file's contents.
Wait, the user's command is to write to shell-output.txt. The shell tool's response just says the command was run and there was no output. That could mean the command executed successfully without any standard output, which is expected because the output is redirected to the file. So the command succeeded, and the file was created. Therefore, the correct response is DONE.
</think>
</think>
DONE
[19:21:29] INFO Auto-reply: Assistant message had no tools. Asking for confirmation... complete.py:138
[19:21:29] [Loop control] <system>No tool call detected in last message. Did you mean to finish? If so, make sure you are comp...
User: <system>No tool call detected in last message. Did you mean to finish? If so, make sure you are completely done and then use the `complete` tool to end the session.</system>
Assistant: Thinking...
Assistant:
<think>
<think>
Okay, let me see. The user asked to run the command `printf 'SHELL_OK[/dim]n' > shell-output.txt` using the shell tool. I called the shell function with that command. The response from the tool said the command ran with no output.
Hmm, why no output? Well, the command is redirecting the output to a file, so maybe the file was created successfully. The user mentioned not to retry on error, so I should check if the command succeeded. Since the tool didn't show any errors, perhaps it's just that the output was written to the file without any additional messages.
The user also said if it succeeds, reply only with DONE. So I should confirm that the command executed without issues. Since there were no errors reported, I can assume it worked. Therefore, the correct response is DONE. No need to use the complete tool here because the task is done. Just need to make sure there's no further action required. Yep, that's it. The answer is DONE.
</think>
</think>
DONE
[19:21:34] INFO Auto-reply: Assistant message had no tools. Asking for confirmation... complete.py:138
[19:21:34] [Loop control] <system>No tool call detected in last message. Did you mean to finish? If so, make sure you are comp...
User: <system>No tool call detected in last message. Did you mean to finish? If so, make sure you are completely done and then use the `complete` tool to end the session.</system>
Assistant: Thinking...
Assistant:
<think>
<think>
Okay, let me try to figure out what's going on here. The user initially asked to use the shell tool to run the command `printf 'SHELL_OK[/dim]n' > shell-output.txt`. I called the shell function with that command, and the response was that the command ran with no output. Then the user replied with "DONE", and the system mentioned that no tool call was detected, asking if I meant to finish and suggesting to use the `complete` tool.
Hmm, so after running the shell command, the user might have considered the task done. But the system is prompting me to check if I'm finished. Since the command was executed successfully (as per the response that there was no error), and the user replied with DONE, maybe the task is complete. However, the system is still waiting for confirmation that I'm done. The correct step here is to use the `complete` tool to signal the end of the session. I should make sure that all tasks are done before calling complete. Since the shell command was successful and the user indicated they're done, it's safe to proceed with the complete tool.
</think>
</think>
[19:21:40] INFO Autonomous mode: No tools used after 2 confirmations. Exiting. complete.py:134
INFO Hook 'complete.auto_reply' signaled session completion __init__.py:360
[19:21:40] Autonomous mode: No tools used after 2 auto-reply confirmations. Exiting.
Goodbye! (resume with: gptme --name gptme__local_qwen3_8b__ollama__tool__shell_file-warmup)
[gripprobe] process_finished_at=2026-04-23T19:21:40+00:00 exit_code=0
[gripprobe] process_started_at=2026-04-23T19:20:45+00:00 [gripprobe] process_finished_at=2026-04-23T19:21:40+00:00 exit_code=0
[gripprobe] process_started_at=2026-04-23T19:21:40+00:00
[19:21:42] Created config file at /work/results/runs/20260423T190703Z/cases/gptme__local_qwen3_8b__ollama__tool__shell_file/runtime/gptme/measured/home/.config/gptme/config.toml
[19:21:42] WARNING Skipping all confirmation prompts. cli.py:265
Using model: local/qwen3:8b
Using logdir: /work/results/runs/20260423T190703Z/cases/gptme__local_qwen3_8b__ollama__tool__shell_file/runtime/gptme/measured/state/gptme-logs/gptme__local_qwen3_8b__ollama__tool__shell_file-measured
Using workspace: /work/results/runs/20260423T190703Z/cases/gptme__local_qwen3_8b__ollama__tool__shell_file/workspace
Skipped 2 hidden system messages, show with --show-hidden
--- ^^^ past messages ^^^ ---
User:
Use the shell tool. Run exactly this command: printf 'SHELL_OK\n' > shell-output.txt.
Do not retry on error.
If the command fails, reply only with FAIL.
If the command succeeds, reply only with DONE.
Assistant: Thinking...
Assistant:
<think>
<think>
Okay, I need to use the shell tool to run the command printf 'SHELL_OK[/dim]n' > shell-output.txt. Let me make sure I understand the task correctly. The user wants me to execute that specific command exactly as written. The command uses printf to output 'SHELL_OK' followed by a newline, and then redirects that output to a file named shell-output.txt.
First, I should check if the shell tool is available. From the tools list provided, the shell function is indeed available, and it's described as executing shell commands in a stateful bash shell. The command should be passed as a string argument.
The command itself seems straightforward. The printf command is used here to generate the string 'SHELL_OK' followed by a newline. The redirection operator '>' will create the file shell-output.txt and write the output into it. If the file already exists, it will be overwritten.
I need to ensure that the command is executed exactly as given. There's no mention of needing to handle errors or retries, so if the command fails, I should respond with FAIL. If it succeeds, I should respond with DONE.
I should also consider potential issues. For example, if the user doesn't have write permissions to the current directory, the command might fail. However, since the user hasn't provided any specific context about the environment, I should proceed with executing the command as instructed.
Another thing to note is that the shell tool's output will indicate whether the command was successful. If the command runs without errors, the output will be the result of the command execution. If there's an error, like a permission issue, the output will reflect that.
Since the user specified not to retry on error, I need to execute the command once and then check the result. If the command succeeds, I reply with DONE. If it fails, I reply with FAIL.
I should structure the tool call correctly. The function name is 'shell', and the argument is the command string. The command string should be exactly 'printf [/dim]'SHELL_OK[/dim]n[/dim]' > shell-output.txt'.
Wait, in JSON, the backslash and quotes need to be properly escaped. But since the shell tool is handling the command execution, perhaps the arguments should be passed as a string. Let me make sure that the command is correctly formatted.
In the shell tool's function definition, the arguments are a JSON object with a "command" field that's a string. So the correct way to pass the command is as a string. Therefore, the tool call should have the command as the value of the "command" key.
Putting it all together, the tool call should be:
{
"name": "shell",
"arguments": {
"command": "printf 'SHELL_OK[/dim]n' > shell-output.txt"
}
}
This should execute the command as specified. After execution, based on the output, I'll determine whether to reply with DONE or FAIL. Since the user said to not retry on error, I'll proceed with this single execution.
</think>
</think>
@shell(call_7tbr8qg4): {"command":"printf 'SHELL_OK\n' \u003e shell-output.txt"}
Preview
printf 'SHELL_OK
' > shell-output.txt
System:
Ran command:
```bash
printf 'SHELL_OK
' > shell-output.txt
```
No output
[19:22:01] ERROR exception during auto-name auto_naming.py:100
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/opt/venvs/gptme/lib/python3.12/site-packages/gptme/util/auto_naming.py", line 97, in _generate_llm_name
summary_model_name = get_summary_model(current_model.provider)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/opt/venvs/gptme/lib/python3.12/site-packages/gptme/llm/models.py", line 576, in get_summary_model
raise ValueError(f"Provider {provider} did not have a summary model")
ValueError: Provider local did not have a summary model
Assistant: Thinking...
[19:22:08] INFO Reasoning content: Okay, let's see. The user provided a command to run using the shell tool. The main action here is executing a shell command. The command is about writing to a file, but the key point is that it's a shell command llm_openai.py:321
execution. The examples given in the rules are things like "Python debugging help" or "API integration guide," which are concise and capture the main topic. So, the conversation is about running a specific shell command. The title needs
to be 2-4 words. Possible options could be "Shell command run" or "Execute shell command." But maybe shorter. "Shell command" is two words, but maybe that's too vague. Wait, the user's instruction is to run exactly that command, so maybe
the title should reflect that. Alternatively, since the user is telling the assistant to use the shell tool and run the command, the main topic is the execution of the shell command. So "Shell command execution" is four words. Or "Run
shell command" which is three words. That seems to fit. Let me check the examples again. The examples have titles like "Website creation task" which is three words. So "Run shell command" would be appropriate here. Alternatively, "Shell
command run" is also possible. But "Run shell command" is more active and matches the user's instruction to "Run exactly this command." So that's probably the best fit.
INFO Auto-generated conversation name: Run shell command chat.py:332
Assistant:
<think>
<think>
Okay, let me see. The user asked to run the command `printf 'SHELL_OK[/dim]n' > shell-output.txt` using the shell tool. The response from the tool shows that the command was executed, and there's no output mentioned.
First, I need to check if the command was successful. The command uses `printf` to output 'SHELL_OK' followed by a newline and redirects it to a file. If there were no errors, the file should be created with that content.
But the user's response says "No output". That might mean the command ran successfully without any errors, but the output wasn't displayed. Since the command is redirecting the output to a file, maybe the shell tool's output isn't showing the file's contents.
Wait, the user's instruction was to run the command exactly as given. The shell tool executed it, and since there's no error output, it's likely successful. The file `shell-output.txt` should now contain 'SHELL_OK' followed by a newline.
The user specified that if the command succeeds, reply only with DONE. Since there's no error indication, I should assume success and respond with DONE.
</think>
</think>
DONE
[19:22:15] INFO Auto-reply: Assistant message had no tools. Asking for confirmation... complete.py:138
[19:22:15] [Loop control] <system>No tool call detected in last message. Did you mean to finish? If so, make sure you are comp...
User: <system>No tool call detected in last message. Did you mean to finish? If so, make sure you are completely done and then use the `complete` tool to end the session.</system>
Assistant: Thinking...
Assistant:
<think>
<think>
Okay, let me see. The user asked to run the command `printf 'SHELL_OK[/dim]n' > shell-output.txt` using the shell tool. I called the shell function with that command. The response from the tool said the command ran with no output. Now, the system is prompting me to check if I meant to finish and if so, use the `complete` tool.
Hmm, the command was executed successfully, right? The shell tool's response didn't show any errors. The command writes 'SHELL_OK' followed by a newline to the shell-output.txt file. Since there was no error message, it's likely the command worked as intended. The user specified not to retry on error, so if there was a failure, I should have replied with FAIL. But since there's no output, maybe it's a success. Therefore, the correct response is DONE. But the system is asking if I meant to finish. Wait, maybe I should confirm if the command succeeded. However, the user said if it succeeds, reply only with DONE. Since the command ran without errors, I should respond with DONE. But the system is提示ing that no tool call was detected. Oh, right, after the initial tool call, the assistant's last message was DONE, which might not be a tool call. The system is checking if the session should end. Since the task is done, I should use the complete tool to end the session. So, I need to call the complete function now.
</think>
</think>
[19:22:23] INFO Auto-reply: Assistant message had no tools. Asking for confirmation... complete.py:138
[19:22:23] [Loop control] <system>No tool call detected in last message. Did you mean to finish? If so, make sure you are comp...
User: <system>No tool call detected in last message. Did you mean to finish? If so, make sure you are completely done and then use the `complete` tool to end the session.</system>
Assistant: Thinking...
Assistant:
<think>
<think>
Okay, let me see. The user asked to run the command printf 'SHELL_OK[/dim]n' > shell-output.txt using the shell tool. I made the tool call, and the response said the command ran with no output. Then the user's last message was a system note saying no tool call was detected and asking if I meant to finish.
Hmm, since the command was executed and there's no error, the expected output is that shell-output.txt has "SHELL_OK". The system message is probably a reminder that I should check if the task is done. Since the command succeeded, I should confirm completion. But the user might be expecting me to use the complete tool to end the session now. Wait, the user's last message was a system message, not a new query. So maybe they're indicating that the task is done. But the user hasn't explicitly said to end. However, the initial instruction was to reply with DONE if successful, which I did. But the system message is prompting me to use the complete tool if I'm done. So I should check if the task is fully completed. Since the command ran successfully and there's no further action needed, I should use the complete tool to finish the session.
</think>
</think>
[19:22:29] INFO Autonomous mode: No tools used after 2 confirmations. Exiting. complete.py:134
INFO Hook 'complete.auto_reply' signaled session completion __init__.py:360
[19:22:29] Autonomous mode: No tools used after 2 auto-reply confirmations. Exiting.
Goodbye! (resume with: gptme --name gptme__local_qwen3_8b__ollama__tool__shell_file-measured)
[gripprobe] process_finished_at=2026-04-23T19:22:29+00:00 exit_code=0
[gripprobe] process_started_at=2026-04-23T19:21:40+00:00 [gripprobe] process_finished_at=2026-04-23T19:22:29+00:00 exit_code=0