Repository navigation
[Feature]: [UX] Terminal style history for chat input text field. #1777
Description
Activity
Simple enough change, made a minimal pr.
- added a commit that references this issue
on Apr 9, 2026 The files that need to be edited for this feature are a high action space, as a result merge conflicts keep getting introduced. Will make a pr on this once the repo is open for contributions, else I'll just have to keep closing my PRs.
- added a commit that references this issue
on Jul 23, 2026 Would like this too. One detail worth pinning down in the spec, since it is the difference between this being useful and being annoying:
Up should only recall history when the composer is empty. If there is already text in the box, Up should move the caret within that text as it does today — otherwise the key becomes unusable for editing a multi-line prompt, which is most of them.
That matches the terminal behaviour the title refers to (readline/zsh only pull from history when the line is empty, or when the caret is on the first line), and it keeps the change additive rather than taking an existing key away.
The rest, in roughly the order I would want it:
- Up on an empty composer fills it with your previous message; Up again steps further back.
- Down steps forward, and past the newest entry returns the composer to empty.
- Editing a recalled message and then navigating away should not clobber the stored history entry.
Smallest useful version is just the first bullet.
Note that Codex desktop does support this feature and I love it, have been missing it a lot since switching!
- locked and limited conversation to collaborators
on Aug 15, 2026
Before submitting
Area
apps/desktop
Problem or use case
As a user, I want to press the UP arrow key, to populate my chat input text field with the previous message in the chat history.
Proposed solution
When the user is focused on the chat input text field, pressing the UP arrow key should populate the text field with the previous message.
Why this matters
Improves UX while using chat.
Smallest useful scope
--
Alternatives considered
No response
Risks or tradeoffs
No response
Examples or references
No response
Contribution