Repository navigation
Description
Summary
The rubber-duck sub-agent exists to give a cross-family second opinion — a Claude session gets a GPT reviewer, and vice versa. Its shipped definition deliberately omits model: so the complementary strategy can select an opposite-family model.
However, the task tool exposes an optional model parameter to the calling model. When the parent agent supplies it, that value wins over everything, including a complementary value the user explicitly configured in /subagents. The result is a Claude session getting a Claude reviewer — silently, with no warning, defeating the agent's entire purpose.
Version: GitHub Copilot CLI 1.0.79 (darwin-arm64)
Why this is a defect rather than expected precedence
"Explicit argument beats config file" is correct precedence when a human supplied the argument. Here the argument is a non-deterministic token sequence emitted by an LLM that has no knowledge that the user configured anything. So model discretion silently outranks explicit user configuration, and nothing surfaces the divergence.
Contributing factors:
-
The design intent is documented in the shipped agent file.
definitions/rubber-duck.agent.yaml:# model: omitted - will be selected dynamically at runtime based on user's current model preference -
No guidance is given to the calling model. The
tasktool describesmodelgenerically ("Use 'model' parameter to override the default model (20 models available)"). Neither that description nor therubber-duckagent description mentions that settingmodeldefeats the complementary strategy. The calling model has no signal that this agent is special. -
No guard and no warning exist. Searching the native
runtime.nodefor complementary-related user-facing strings turns up only the unavailable error ("...uses a complementary model... but none is available..."). There is no warning when an explicit model collapses the agent to the parent's own family.
Reproduction
Observed in a real session (claude-opus-5 parent). From ~/.copilot/session-state/<id>/events.jsonl:
tool.execution_start, toolCallId: toolu_01DXhyxFyFHbcsQmGQseBwmi:
{
"agent_type": "rubber-duck",
"name": "reval-review",
"description": "Review README revalidation changes",
"model": "claude-opus-4.8",
"prompt": "..."
}Corresponding subagent.completed:
agentName: "rubber-duck" model: "claude-opus-4.8"
A Claude session received a Claude reviewer.
Verified precedence
Calling the native resolver directly (runtime.node → subagentStartPlan), parent model claude-opus-5, available models claude-opus-5 / claude-opus-4.8 / gpt-5.6-sol all at price category high:
/subagents setting |
explicit model arg |
resolved model |
|---|---|---|
| (none) | (none) | gpt-5.6-sol ✅ |
| (none) | claude-opus-4.8 |
claude-opus-4.8 ❌ |
complementary |
claude-opus-4.8 |
claude-opus-4.8 ❌ |
gpt-5.6-sol |
claude-opus-4.8 |
claude-opus-4.8 ❌ |
gpt-5.6-sol |
(none) | gpt-5.6-sol ✅ |
Effective precedence:
explicit `model` arg > /subagents setting > agent-declared model > complementary > inherit
Rows 3 and 4 are the problem: a setting the user deliberately chose is overridden by a value the model guessed.
Repro script
// from ~/.copilot/pkg/darwin-arm64/1.0.79/
const h = require("./prebuilds/darwin-arm64/runtime.node");
const models = [
{ id: "claude-opus-5", label: "C5", priceCategory: "high" },
{ id: "claude-opus-4.8", label: "C48", priceCategory: "high" },
{ id: "gpt-5.6-sol", label: "Sol", priceCategory: "high" },
];
const plan = (o) => JSON.parse(h.subagentStartPlan(JSON.stringify({
agentType: "rubber-duck",
availableBuiltinNames: ["rubber-duck"],
customAgentNames: [], isCustom: false,
explicitModel: o.explicitModel,
subagents: o.subagents,
selectedParentModel: "claude-opus-5",
autoMode: false,
defaultToComplementary: true,
complementarySelection: { model: "gpt-5.6-sol" },
availableModels: models,
})));
const S = (m) => ({ agents: { "rubber-duck": { model: m } } });
console.log(plan({})); // gpt-5.6-sol
console.log(plan({ explicitModel: "claude-opus-4.8" })); // claude-opus-4.8
console.log(plan({ explicitModel: "claude-opus-4.8", subagents: S("complementary") })); // claude-opus-4.8
console.log(plan({ explicitModel: "claude-opus-4.8", subagents: S("gpt-5.6-sol") })); // claude-opus-4.8Expected behaviour
Any one of these would resolve it; they are listed cheapest first.
-
Document the constraint to the calling model. Add to the
tasktool description, or therubber-duckagent description: "Do not setmodelfor this agent — it selects a complementary, opposite-family model automatically." Low-risk and likely fixes the majority of occurrences. -
Rank a configured
/subagentsvalue above a model-emittedmodelargument. Distinguish a human per-invocation override from one the model produced, and let explicit user configuration win. This is the principled fix. -
Warn on family collapse. When
rubber-duckresolves to the same model family as the parent session, surface it in the timeline or emit a warning. Today the only way to discover this is to readevents.jsonlby hand.
Impact
The failure is silent and the output is still plausible — a same-family reviewer returns a confident critique that simply shares the author model's blind spots. Users believe they are getting a cross-family second opinion when they are not, and the /subagents setting they configured to guarantee it does not hold.
Current workaround
Instruct the parent agent never to pass model for agent_type: "rubber-duck" (e.g. in ~/.copilot/copilot-instructions.md). This is per-machine and depends on instruction adherence, so it is not a substitute for a product fix.
Related
#4380 reports the same user-visible symptom (rubber-duck running the parent's own model family), but appears to be a different mechanism: there the reporter's /subagents shows complementary — unavailable, disabled with Overridden: No, i.e. no opposite-family model was available at all.
In the case above, complementary was available (gpt-5.6-sol was present at the same price category and is what resolves when no model argument is passed) and was overridden by the explicit argument. So the two may need separate fixes, and I have added this evidence there as well.
Activity
nick-thinks commentedon Aug 11, 2026
Hi @eggboy thanks for noting all of this. In some sense this is expected behavior from a technical perspective, though I appreciate it is unexpected for you and clearly not reliable in your use cases. I will look into this.
FWIW: we consciously left the "model" argument overrideable by the session agent. We did so for the same reason the other task tool subagents' models can be overridden by the session agent: we allow the user to ask conversationally for some behavior, or the session agent may have its own "reason" to require it.
I double-checked and actually we do provide an instruction inside the rubber duck task tool description not to override model, but this is only passed to Claude session models and not GPT ones (that's a bug). These instructions are also updated separately from any task tool instructions, e.g. to use the model override argument, which may clash. Instructions are not bullet-proof, though, and this becomes more of a product question about the use cases we want to support. Let me ask and get back to you on this.
eggboy commentedon Aug 12, 2026
Related, found while investigating this: #4457 — cross-family sub-agent spawns also mishandle the inherited tool list, emitting a spurious
Unknown tool name in the tool excludedlist: "apply_patch"becauseapply_patchis registered only for Codex models.Same weak spot (cross-family sub-agent handling), different surface: this issue is functional (the wrong model runs), #4457 is presentational (a misleading, unactionable warning).
rubber-duckis the common trigger for both, since itscomplementarystrategy deliberately selects the opposite model family.