fix: improve smaller model response on user refusals

[jrmi]

I noticed that when you refuse the operation when asked for confirmation, small models (at least gpt-o4-mini) are a bit lost and try again the same command without any modification multiple times which make the confirmation useless.

To test it, with a gpt-o4-mini just use a prompt like "Create the file foo.txt with random content.and sayNo` when the tool ask for confirmation to save and the mode will call the tool again with the same parameters.

In this MR I tweaked a bit the initial prompt and the response message in these cases to prevent that behavior.

---

Important

Improves response behavior for smaller models by updating prompts and messages to prevent redundant command execution after user refusals.

• Behavior:
  • Updates confirmation messages in chat.py, commands.py, tools/patch.py, tools/python.py, tools/save.py, tools/tmux.py, and util/ask_execute.py to specify user-initiated interruptions and refusals.
  • Modifies prompt_gptme() in prompts.py to instruct the model not to retry operations after user refusal and to ask for clarification instead.
• Prompts:
  • Adds a line in prompt_gptme() to handle user-aborted operations by asking for clarification rather than retrying.
• Messages:
  • Changes various system messages to clarify when a user has aborted an operation, e.g., "User hit Ctrl-c to interrupt the process" and "Aborted, user chose not to run this code."

^{This description was created by for 3f54a02. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Reviewed everything up to 3f54a02 in 27 seconds

More details

• Looked at 146 lines of code in 8 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 7 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. gptme/chat.py:141

• Draft comment:
  Improved message clarity by specifying the user action. This change is consistent with the PR's goal to enhance user feedback when operations are aborted.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 10%
  The PR aims to improve the response when a user refuses an operation. The changes are consistent across multiple files, ensuring that the system message is more descriptive when a user aborts an operation. This is a good practice for clarity and user feedback.

2. gptme/commands.py:186

• Draft comment:
  Improved message clarity by specifying the user action. This change is consistent with the PR's goal to enhance user feedback when operations are aborted.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 10%
  The PR aims to improve the response when a user refuses an operation. The changes are consistent across multiple files, ensuring that the system message is more descriptive when a user aborts an operation. This is a good practice for clarity and user feedback.

3. gptme/tools/patch.py:244

• Draft comment:
  Improved message clarity by specifying the user action. This change is consistent with the PR's goal to enhance user feedback when operations are aborted.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 10%
  The PR aims to improve the response when a user refuses an operation. The changes are consistent across multiple files, ensuring that the system message is more descriptive when a user aborts an operation. This is a good practice for clarity and user feedback.

4. gptme/tools/python.py:117

• Draft comment:
  Improved message clarity by specifying the user action. This change is consistent with the PR's goal to enhance user feedback when operations are aborted.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 10%
  The PR aims to improve the response when a user refuses an operation. The changes are consistent across multiple files, ensuring that the system message is more descriptive when a user aborts an operation. This is a good practice for clarity and user feedback.

5. gptme/tools/save.py:100

• Draft comment:
  Improved message clarity by specifying the user action. This change is consistent with the PR's goal to enhance user feedback when operations are aborted.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 10%
  The PR aims to improve the response when a user refuses an operation. The changes are consistent across multiple files, ensuring that the system message is more descriptive when a user aborts an operation. This is a good practice for clarity and user feedback.

6. gptme/tools/tmux.py:173

• Draft comment:
  Improved message clarity by specifying the user action. This change is consistent with the PR's goal to enhance user feedback when operations are aborted.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 10%
  The PR aims to improve the response when a user refuses an operation. The changes are consistent across multiple files, ensuring that the system message is more descriptive when a user aborts an operation. This is a good practice for clarity and user feedback.

7. gptme/util/ask_execute.py:250

• Draft comment:
  Improved message clarity by specifying the user action. This change is consistent with the PR's goal to enhance user feedback when operations are aborted.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 10%
  The PR aims to improve the response when a user refuses an operation. The changes are consistent across multiple files, ensuring that the system message is more descriptive when a user aborts an operation. This is a good practice for clarity and user feedback.

Workflow ID: wflow_B2AtNfXGSnMSsDmq

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ErikBjare]

Nice, been meaning to do this for a while. Even confuses Sonnet sometimes :)