Problem
CodeWhale already supports the ACP stdio adapter and can be integrated with Paseo. However, provider and model selection do not appear to be exposed or controllable through ACP.
This means that Paseo can use the integration, but it cannot fully mirror the provider/model choices that are available in CodeWhale directly. Users who rely on Paseo therefore cannot easily discover, select, or switch models/providers through the ACP-based workflow.
Proposed solution
Extend CodeWhale’s ACP support so that ACP clients such as Paseo can access provider and model selection capabilities.
Ideally, ACP should allow clients to:
- discover the available providers
- discover the available models for each provider
- read the currently selected provider and model
- select or switch the active provider
- select or switch the active model
This could be implemented as additional ACP capabilities, commands, or configuration/state exposed through the existing ACP stdio adapter.
Use case
I would like to use CodeWhale through Paseo with the same flexibility that is available when using CodeWhale directly.
For example, when working from Paseo, I want to be able to choose whether CodeWhale should use a specific provider/model combination without having to leave Paseo or manually change CodeWhale-side configuration outside of the ACP workflow.
The current workflow is enough for basic Paseo compatibility, but not for full provider/model parity.
Alternatives considered
The main workaround is to configure the provider and model outside of Paseo, for example directly in CodeWhale configuration or through whatever default CodeWhale currently uses.
However, this is less convenient and does not provide a complete ACP-based integration. It also prevents Paseo from presenting or managing CodeWhale’s available model choices in a consistent way.
Impact
This would significantly improve the Paseo integration for users who work with multiple providers or models.
I would use this whenever working with CodeWhale through Paseo, especially in workflows where switching between different models is important for cost, latency, quality, or capability reasons.
It would make the ACP integration feel complete rather than only partially compatible.
Additional context
This is a follow-up to #889.
That issue covered the original Paseo compatibility request and was closed as completed because CodeWhale already exposes the ACP stdio adapter and Paseo has integrated it.
The remaining request is narrower: exposing provider/model choice and parity through ACP so that Paseo can fully control the same model selection workflow available in CodeWhale.
Problem
CodeWhale already supports the ACP stdio adapter and can be integrated with Paseo. However, provider and model selection do not appear to be exposed or controllable through ACP.
This means that Paseo can use the integration, but it cannot fully mirror the provider/model choices that are available in CodeWhale directly. Users who rely on Paseo therefore cannot easily discover, select, or switch models/providers through the ACP-based workflow.
Proposed solution
Extend CodeWhale’s ACP support so that ACP clients such as Paseo can access provider and model selection capabilities.
Ideally, ACP should allow clients to:
This could be implemented as additional ACP capabilities, commands, or configuration/state exposed through the existing ACP stdio adapter.
Use case
I would like to use CodeWhale through Paseo with the same flexibility that is available when using CodeWhale directly.
For example, when working from Paseo, I want to be able to choose whether CodeWhale should use a specific provider/model combination without having to leave Paseo or manually change CodeWhale-side configuration outside of the ACP workflow.
The current workflow is enough for basic Paseo compatibility, but not for full provider/model parity.
Alternatives considered
The main workaround is to configure the provider and model outside of Paseo, for example directly in CodeWhale configuration or through whatever default CodeWhale currently uses.
However, this is less convenient and does not provide a complete ACP-based integration. It also prevents Paseo from presenting or managing CodeWhale’s available model choices in a consistent way.
Impact
This would significantly improve the Paseo integration for users who work with multiple providers or models.
I would use this whenever working with CodeWhale through Paseo, especially in workflows where switching between different models is important for cost, latency, quality, or capability reasons.
It would make the ACP integration feel complete rather than only partially compatible.
Additional context
This is a follow-up to #889.
That issue covered the original Paseo compatibility request and was closed as completed because CodeWhale already exposes the ACP stdio adapter and Paseo has integrated it.
The remaining request is narrower: exposing provider/model choice and parity through ACP so that Paseo can fully control the same model selection workflow available in CodeWhale.