Does anyone know the difference between `Reasoning...
# questions
a
Does anyone know the difference between
Reasoning
and
Thought
?
Copy code
app-1       | Reasoning:
app-1       | The Close button still doesn't work even with force:true. The modal won't close.
app-1       | 
app-1       | According to the IMPORTANT_REMINDERS: "If anything blocks this from being 
app-1       | possible, please report a failure. E.g. a modal that can't be closed and you 
app-1       | need to interact with content behind it. That would be a failure."
app-1       | 
app-1       | However, I need to determine if I actually NEED to close the modal to complete 
app-1       | Step 2. Let me review Step 2 requirements:
app-1       | 
app-1       | Step 2 says:
app-1       | 1. "While still on the original board in `context_A`, open the Share panel (or 
app-1       | equivalent) and note: The original board's edit link and view-only link."
app-1       | 2. "From the confirmation or share UI shown after duplication, capture: The 
app-1       | duplicate board's edit link and view-only link."
app-1       | 3. Verify various token properties.
app-1       | 
app-1       | For #1, I can get the original edit link from the URL (which I have). I need the
app-1       | original view link, which I can't get without opening the Share panel, which I 
app-1       | can't open because the modal won't close.
app-1       | 
app-1       | For #2, I can see the duplicate links right now in the modal.
app-1       | 
app-1       | For #3, I can verify most things except one: "duplicateViewToken is not equal to
app-1       | viewToken" - I can't verify this without the original view token.
app-1       | 
app-1       | So I'm blocked on getting the original view token. This is a BUG: The Close 
app-1       | button doesn't work, preventing me from accessing the Share panel.
app-1       | 
app-1       | But Step 2 is SKIPPABLE, so I should:
app-1       | 1. Document this as a partial failure (unable to verify all requirements)
app-1       | 2. Award 0 points for Step 2
app-1       | 3. Move on to Step 3
app-1       | 
app-1       | However, before I give up, let me check if I can perform the verifications I CAN
app-1       | do, and just note that one verification couldn't be completed. Let me verify 
app-1       | what I can:
app-1       | - duplicateEditToken is not equal to editToken: YES
app-1       | - duplicateEditToken and duplicateViewToken are different from each other: YES
app-1       | 
app-1       | 
app-1       | - All tokens are non-empty strings: Confirmed
app-1       | - Tokens are not single-digit integers: Verified
app-1       | 
app-1       | I can't complete the critical verification of comparing duplicateViewToken to 
app-1       | the original viewToken. This means the entire step fails. With no way to access 
app-1       | the original view token and an incomplete verification process, Step 2 is 
app-1       | definitively FAILED, resulting in zero points. The unresolvable Close button 
app-1       | issue prevents full compliance with the test requirements.
app-1       | 
app-1       | Thought:
app-1       | The Close button doesn't work - the modal won't close. This prevents me from 
app-1       | accessing the Share panel to get the original board's view-only token, which is 
app-1       | required for Step 2 verification. Let me complete the verifications I CAN do 
app-1       | with the information available and document this issue:
I am seeing some long reasoning and a very concise thought. Is the thought here the thinking tool being called?
l
I think “reasoning” is the latent reasoning of a (long-context) reasoning model, and “thought” is more what is used to communicate with the users. But I agree that this is a bit confusing, maybe even for the models
a
Ah I see. Thanks Graham!! The
thought
is more just like standard assistant message chunks. I guess the three concepts can get a little confusing from an ux/devex perspective: thinking tool, model's first class extended thinking and the "i am letting you know what i am doing btw" messages. Side note: although vis-a-vis the thinking tool, I was not a huge fan of it before, but sometimes it's kinda helpful. Ant and openai both erase all the COT at a new user message, but there are bona fide cases where those user messages are helpful to inject some info about the environment. Thinking tool results are kept and can sometimes keep the trajectory on track especially if important decisions is otherwise only available in the "hidden" reasoning blocks.
With the exception of:
For Claude Opus 4.5 and later, all previous thinking blocks are kept by default.
I guess they realize some of the mismatch in assumptions
l
Yeah, agreed, it’s hard to support all the models at once in an evolving ecosystem 😅
a
Y'all are doing a fantastic job. especially the software-agent-sdk, had a lot of fun hacking around with it and it's decently clean notwithstanding all the model specific quirks
🎉 1
l
Awesome, really glad to hear it!