feat: record user agent and best effort client by pawbana · Pull Request #158 · coder/aibridge

pawbana · 2026-01-29T15:08:01Z

Adds raw user agent value and heuristically guessed client name to interception recording.

Fixes: #31

pawbana · 2026-01-29T15:08:21Z

feat: record user agent and best effort client #158 👈 (View in Graphite)
main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

matifali · 2026-01-30T04:12:23Z

This targets #31 and not #20. Let's keep #20 open till we have a complete system of identification in place. Thanks :)

dannykopping · 2026-02-04T14:57:48Z

What more would you need to see added for this to be considered "complete system of identification" @matifali?

dannykopping

LGTM!

bridge.go

bridge_integration_test.go

bridge.go

matifali · 2026-02-04T15:24:40Z

What more would you need to see added for this to be considered "complete system of identification" @matifali?

I think when

This gets emitted in logs (if not already)
Request Logs View
Prometheus metrics
Anything I missed?

matifali · 2026-02-04T15:26:39Z

What more would you need to see added for this to be considered "complete system of identification" @matifali?

See my commnet on issue: #20 (comment)

bridge_integration_test.go

ssncferreira

LGTM 👍

bridge.go

ssncferreira · 2026-02-05T12:03:09Z

bridge_integration_test.go

 			getResponseIDFunc: getAnthropicResponseID,
 			createRequest:     createAnthropicMessagesReq,
 			expectedMsgID:     "msg_01Pvyf26bY17RcjmWfJsXGBn",
+			userAgent:         "GitHubCopilotChat/0.37.2026011603",


Nice 👍 This is the one used for Copilot in VSCode.
nit: maybe you could also add a test for Copilot CLI, user agent is usually something like User-Agent: copilot/0.0.403 (client/cli linux v24.11.1)

Oh good call; we probably want to distinguish the CLI and VS Code versions (and others).

ssncferreira · 2026-02-05T12:13:20Z

recorder/types.go

+	Model       string
+	Provider    string
+	StartedAt   time.Time
+	UserAgent   string


Since we already have Client do we need to store this? Wouldn't it be possible to add it to Metadata?

I would consider UserAgent a separate entity from Metadata.

The way we store it in coder DB (as part of metadata) is an implementation detail. If AI Bridge would be part of coder/coder repo then yes it would make sense to add it to metadata here.

I would consider UserAgent a separate entity from Metadata.

Why is that? I'm not too familiar with how metadata is used in aibridge.
I think storing client as a separate field makes sense since it's data we validate and generate ourselves. But the raw user agent header is just additional context that may not always be relevant (e.g., when client is "unknown").
Since the user agent ends up being added to metadata in coder anyway, couldn't we just add it directly to metadata here and skip the extra field/proto changes?

This is a non-blocking comment: I'm not saying this is wrong, just trying to understand the reasoning 🙂

In general I'm open to adding user agent as a field to metadata and I agree that it would simplify a bit code in coder PRs but since we have separate repos I'd like to maintain "neutrality" and rather not think about coder implementation details in AI Bridge PRs. Maybe I'm a bit too strict with this approach.

I think this approach makes it more flexible. If AI Bridge user wants to store user-agent in metadata it is possible (how later PRs are doing) if they rather store it differently it is also possible without deleting things from metadata. With separate fields there is clear boundary Metadata == what was set in AsActor.Metadata. If user would like to have it in metadata it could be added sooner in AsActor. Maybe this would be better approach (although then each user would have to extract user-agent himself)?.
Now that I look at it, it seems a bit unnecessary that metadata is simply going back and forth but I think there will be some use for it later.

matifali · 2026-02-06T06:49:32Z

bridge.go

+	ClientRoo        = "Roo Code"
+	ClientCursor     = "Cursor"
+	ClientUnknown    = "Unknown"
+)


Can we add cline and JetBrains to the list?

There is some investigation here

Unfortunately for both cline and JetBrains user agents are not useful.
If I understand correctly both are from some JS and Kotlin library.

I think it's safe to assume that ktor-client will always be JetBrains

Ideally, we should allow folks to specify their own mapping somewhere in the UI, but that's for another time.

Maybe I'm too defensive here but I think we should set client only when we have very high confidence the client is correct, so when user agent (or some other header) uniquely identifies application.

My assumption is that it would be better to have as little false positives as possible, even with the cost of not recording JetBrains 90% of the time correctly. For investigating there is fallback with raw user agent being added to metadata if needed.

matifali · 2026-02-06T06:50:33Z

bridge.go

+	case strings.HasPrefix(userAgent, "kilo-code/") || originator == "kilo-code":
+		return ClientKilo
+	case strings.HasPrefix(userAgent, "roo-code/") || originator == "roo-code":
+		return ClientRoo


When Provider is Anthropic Both kilo code and Roo code have a different user-agent. Please see: #20 (comment)

In Anthropic cases user agents seem to not be useful as they look like they originate from JS library. If originator header is set then it should still work.

If originator header is set then it should still work.

Unfortunatly this is also only set for OpenAI :(

pawbana force-pushed the pb/user-agent branch from e88e8b5 to f620dd1 Compare January 29, 2026 15:14

pawbana force-pushed the pb/user-agent branch 2 times, most recently from fa711aa to b16f48a Compare February 3, 2026 17:49

This was referenced Feb 3, 2026

feat: record user agent in AI Bridge interceptions coder/coder#21769

Open

feat: add client column to aibridge_interceptions table coder/coder#21839

Open

pawbana requested review from dannykopping and ssncferreira February 3, 2026 17:55

pawbana changed the title ~~feat: add user agent recording~~ feat: record user agent and best effort client Feb 3, 2026

pawbana marked this pull request as ready for review February 3, 2026 17:57

dannykopping approved these changes Feb 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

bridge.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

bridge_integration_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

bridge.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

bridge.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

matifali reviewed Feb 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

bridge_integration_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pawbana force-pushed the pb/user-agent branch from b16f48a to 93e3a75 Compare February 5, 2026 12:03

ssncferreira approved these changes Feb 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

ssncferreira reviewed Feb 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

matifali reviewed Feb 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

pawbana added 3 commits February 10, 2026 10:53

feat: add user agent recording

cc23a3f

review: GitHubCopilot -> GitHub Copilot

0f0d682

review: nits, Copilot CLI, constants

38bfb12

pawbana force-pushed the pb/user-agent branch from d9c4ab2 to 38bfb12 Compare February 10, 2026 10:53

Conversation

pawbana commented Jan 29, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

pawbana commented Jan 29, 2026

Uh oh!

matifali commented Jan 30, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

dannykopping commented Feb 4, 2026

Uh oh!

dannykopping left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

matifali commented Feb 4, 2026

Uh oh!

matifali commented Feb 4, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ssncferreira left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pawbana Feb 6, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

matifali Feb 6, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

matifali Feb 6, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

pawbana commented Jan 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

matifali commented Jan 30, 2026 •

edited

Loading

pawbana Feb 6, 2026 •

edited

Loading

matifali Feb 6, 2026 •

edited

Loading

matifali Feb 6, 2026 •

edited

Loading