# NousResearch/hermes-agent · Codex Responses API assistant content field fix

## Open now

- Nothing open on GitHub.

These items address an issue where assistant message content incorrectly used 'input_text' instead of 'output_text' in the Codex Responses API, causing 400 errors. A fix was proposed and a corresponding pull request was submitted.

## TL;DR

- 3 member(s): 0 open issue(s), 1 closed issue(s), 0 open PR(s), 1 merged PR(s), 1 PR(s) closed without merging.
- A fix was merged to main in PR #15690. Verify it addresses your case.
- **Recommended:** read PR #15690 (and any competing PRs below) before filing. Confirm the merged change covers your symptom.

## Maintainer resolution verdict

- Internal-tracker verdict over this cluster's issue members: `resolved` · deciding PR(s): `pr-15690`. This is distinct from the fix status above. Weigh it yourself.

## How this cluster was grouped

- Link evidence (`STRUCTURAL_SPANNING`): every member is connected by structural evidence: shared changed files, or a closing/superseded reference.
- Pairwise link density `0.67`: the share of member pairs that carry a link, counting a structural link in full and a relevance-only link at 0.36. `1.00` means every pair is linked.

## Closed / duplicate issues

- #15687: Codex Responses API 400: input_text invalid on assistant message content

## Prior & competing PRs

- **#15690: fix: use output_text for assistant content in Codex Responses API**. merged to main · fix tier `verified`
  - maintainer direction: category `merged`
  - files: `agent/codex_responses_adapter.py`, `tests/run_agent/test_provider_parity.py`
- **#15691: fix(codex-responses): use output_text for assistant message content (#15687)**. closed without merge
  - maintainer direction: category `merged_via`; implication `superseded`; refs `#15690`

## Fix status

- Merged to main in PR #15690 (cited above). No release data is tracked. Verify downstream.
- Fix last verified (merged) `2026-04-25`. This confirmation is old and may be out of date (a revert/reopen would not have invalidated it here); re-verify.