@oxy.so/contracts 1.0.0

package/dist/cjs/inference/entitlement.js

@@ -0,0 +1,217 @@
+"use strict";
+/**
+ * Product entitlements — the interface a first-party product (Alia) queries to
+ * learn what an account is entitled to, WITHOUT learning anything it could
+ * mistake for a balance.
+ *
+ * ## The separation this file is
+ *
+ * #972 states the failure mode outright: confusing a product subscription with
+ * pay-as-you-go inference usage. So the two live in disjoint shapes here, and
+ * the separation is structural rather than documented:
+ *
+ *  - {@link productEntitlementSchema} carries PLAN and ALLOWANCES. Allowances
+ *    are whole integer counts of a product entitlement (API credits, included
+ *    requests) — `z.number().int()`, never `exactDecimalSchema`, so an allowance
+ *    is not even the same TYPE as money and cannot be added to one.
+ *  - `accountBalanceSchema` (in `accountBilling.ts`) carries MONEY, as exact
+ *    decimal strings.
+ *
+ * There is no field anywhere that is both, and no schema that sums them. A
+ * consumer wanting "what can this account do right now" reads both sections and
+ * presents both; a consumer that only wanted one is not handed the other in a
+ * form it can accidentally arithmetic.
+ *
+ * ## Allowances do not change what a request COSTS
+ *
+ * An Alia plan may include an allowance of inference. Oxy still records the
+ * exact underlying cost of every request against the account's ledger — the
+ * allowance is a PRODUCT-side entitlement that decides what Alia charges its
+ * user, not a discount applied to the receipt. That is why
+ * {@link productEntitlementSchema} names no price and no currency: a plan that
+ * could restate the cost of a request would be a second pricing authority, and
+ * a receipt has exactly one.
+ *
+ * ## Cost centres
+ *
+ * A first-party cost centre IS an Oxy project account — `users.kind` already has
+ * `project`, and an application's `ownerAccountId` already points at one. So a
+ * cost centre adds a LABEL and a slug to an account rather than a parallel
+ * hierarchy, which is the epic's "do not add a second organization model" rule
+ * applied to internal accounting.
+ *
+ * Decided in: docs/adr/0014-account-billing-and-entitlements.md.
+ */
+Object.defineProperty(exports, "__esModule", { value: true });
+exports.productEntitlementSchema = exports.costCenterSpendSchema = exports.costCenterSchema = exports.costCenterStatusSchema = exports.COST_CENTER_STATUSES = exports.payAsYouGoEntitlementSchema = exports.productPlanSchema = exports.planAllowanceSchema = exports.LIVE_PRODUCT_PLAN_STATUSES = exports.productPlanStatusSchema = exports.PRODUCT_PLAN_STATUSES = void 0;
+const zod_1 = require("zod");
+const identifiers_1 = require("./identifiers");
+const accountBilling_1 = require("./accountBilling");
+const money_1 = require("./money");
+/* -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
+/*  Plans and allowances                                                      */
+/* -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
+/**
+ * The statuses a subscription may be mirrored in.
+ *
+ * All of the processor's, not just the ones this platform sells: a mirror that
+ * cannot represent what it mirrors freezes at its previous value, and a
+ * subscription the processor moved to `paused` would keep granting a plan
+ * nobody is paying for.
+ */
+exports.PRODUCT_PLAN_STATUSES = [
+    'active',
+    'canceled',
+    'incomplete',
+    'incomplete_expired',
+    'past_due',
+    'paused',
+    'trialing',
+    'unpaid',
+];
+exports.productPlanStatusSchema = zod_1.z.enum(exports.PRODUCT_PLAN_STATUSES);
+/**
+ * The statuses that mean the plan is LIVE.
+ *
+ * Exported because "is this entitlement in force" must have one answer across
+ * Oxy and every product consuming it — a consumer deriving its own list is how
+ * `past_due` comes to be honoured in one place and refused in another.
+ */
+exports.LIVE_PRODUCT_PLAN_STATUSES = ['active', 'trialing'];
+/**
+ * One allowance included in a plan.
+ *
+ * `remaining` is optional and absent means "not metered against this allowance
+ * here" — NOT zero. A consumer that read an absent allowance as exhausted would
+ * refuse a user who has spent nothing.
+ */
+exports.planAllowanceSchema = zod_1.z
+    .object({
+    /** A stable machine name, e.g. `api_credits_per_month`. */
+    key: zod_1.z.string().regex(/^[a-z][a-z0-9_]{0,62}$/),
+    /** Whole units included per period. Never money. */
+    included: zod_1.z.number().int().nonnegative().safe(),
+    remaining: zod_1.z.number().int().nonnegative().safe().optional(),
+})
+    .strict();
+/**
+ * The plan an account is on, if any.
+ *
+ * `price` is deliberately absent. What a customer pays for their plan is the
+ * processor's record and this platform's `billing_transactions`; restating it
+ * here would put a second price authority in the one interface whose whole job
+ * is to keep product pricing and inference cost apart.
+ */
+exports.productPlanSchema = zod_1.z
+    .object({
+    id: zod_1.z.string().min(1).max(64),
+    name: zod_1.z.string().min(1).max(120),
+    status: exports.productPlanStatusSchema,
+    live: zod_1.z.boolean(),
+    currentPeriodStart: zod_1.z.string().datetime(),
+    currentPeriodEnd: zod_1.z.string().datetime(),
+    cancelAtPeriodEnd: zod_1.z.boolean(),
+    allowances: zod_1.z.array(exports.planAllowanceSchema),
+})
+    .strict();
+/* -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
+/*  Pay-as-you-go position                                                    */
+/* -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
+/**
+ * The account's inference-spend position, summarised for a product consumer.
+ *
+ * A REDUCTION of `accountBillingStateSchema`, not a copy: a product asking "may
+ * this account run another request" needs to know whether spending is possible
+ * and roughly how much room is left, and does not need the bucket breakdown.
+ * `promotionalBalance` and `purchasedBalance` are still separate — the rule that
+ * a grant and a purchase are never one number does not relax because the
+ * consumer is first-party.
+ */
+exports.payAsYouGoEntitlementSchema = zod_1.z
+    .object({
+    /** The account that actually pays — the nearest ancestor with a profile. */
+    billingAccountId: identifiers_1.oxyAccountIdSchema,
+    currency: money_1.currencyCodeSchema,
+    billingMode: accountBilling_1.billingModeSchema,
+    purchasedBalance: money_1.exactDecimalSchema,
+    promotionalBalance: money_1.exactDecimalSchema,
+    availableToSpend: money_1.exactDecimalSchema,
+    /** False when the profile is suspended, closed, or out of room. */
+    canSpend: zod_1.z.boolean(),
+})
+    .strict();
+/* -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
+/*  Cost centres                                                              */
+/* -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
+exports.COST_CENTER_STATUSES = ['active', 'retired'];
+exports.costCenterStatusSchema = zod_1.z.enum(exports.COST_CENTER_STATUSES);
+/**
+ * An internal cost centre — an Oxy account that first-party spend is attributed
+ * to, with a stable slug so a report can name it without an id.
+ *
+ * The account IS the cost centre; this shape only labels it. There is no
+ * `parentId` here for the same reason: the account graph already has one, and a
+ * second parent link would be a second hierarchy that can disagree with it.
+ */
+exports.costCenterSchema = zod_1.z
+    .object({
+    /** See `version.ts`: this shape is served to Console and to Alia. */
+    schemaVersion: zod_1.z.literal(1),
+    accountId: identifiers_1.oxyAccountIdSchema,
+    slug: zod_1.z.string().regex(/^[a-z0-9][a-z0-9-]{0,62}$/),
+    label: zod_1.z.string().min(1).max(120),
+    status: exports.costCenterStatusSchema,
+    createdAt: zod_1.z.string().datetime(),
+    updatedAt: zod_1.z.string().datetime(),
+})
+    .strict();
+/**
+ * What one cost centre spent over a window.
+ *
+ * `billedAmount` comes from settled receipts — the FINANCIAL ledger — never from
+ * telemetry sums, per #972 workstream 8. `requestCount` is a count of receipts,
+ * so the two are always about the same set of rows.
+ */
+exports.costCenterSpendSchema = zod_1.z
+    .object({
+    /** See `version.ts`: this shape is served to Console and to Alia. */
+    schemaVersion: zod_1.z.literal(1),
+    costCenter: exports.costCenterSchema,
+    currency: money_1.currencyCodeSchema,
+    periodStart: zod_1.z.string().datetime(),
+    periodEnd: zod_1.z.string().datetime(),
+    billedAmount: money_1.exactDecimalSchema,
+    requestCount: zod_1.z.number().int().nonnegative().safe(),
+})
+    .strict();
+/* -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
+/*  The interface Alia queries                                                */
+/* -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
+/**
+ * Everything a product needs to decide what an account may do, in one read.
+ *
+ * The three sections never merge:
+ *
+ *  - `plan` + `allowances` — the product subscription.
+ *  - `payAsYouGo` — inference money. `null` when the account has no billing
+ *    profile anywhere up its ancestry, which is a REAL and distinct state from a
+ *    zero balance: nobody has decided who pays for this account yet.
+ *  - `costCenter` — where first-party spend is booked, `null` for a customer.
+ */
+exports.productEntitlementSchema = zod_1.z
+    .object({
+    /** See `version.ts`: this shape is served to Console and to Alia. */
+    schemaVersion: zod_1.z.literal(1),
+    accountId: identifiers_1.oxyAccountIdSchema,
+    plan: exports.productPlanSchema.nullable(),
+    /**
+     * Allowances in force right now, whether they came from a plan or from the
+     * platform's own free tier. Whole counts; never money.
+     */
+    allowances: zod_1.z.array(exports.planAllowanceSchema),
+    payAsYouGo: exports.payAsYouGoEntitlementSchema.nullable(),
+    costCenter: exports.costCenterSchema.nullable(),
+    /** When this view was computed. Entitlements are eventually consistent. */
+    resolvedAt: zod_1.z.string().datetime(),
+})
+    .strict();

package/dist/cjs/inference/errors.js

@@ -0,0 +1,309 @@
+"use strict";
+/**
+ * Inference errors and retryability.
+ *
+ * One closed set of codes, shared by the Oxy public edge, the data plane and
+ * every SDK.
+ * Closed because the alternative — a free-form `code` string — makes a client's
+ * error handling a guess about the producer's spelling, and makes "is this
+ * worth retrying" a decision every consumer re-derives from prose.
+ *
+ * Retryability is carried explicitly and is CONSTRAINED by the code: a code
+ * that can never succeed on a bare retry (an invalid request, a denied
+ * permission, an insufficient balance) cannot claim `retryable: true`. Without
+ * that constraint the field is advisory, and one producer setting it optimistically
+ * turns every client into a retry storm against a request that will never pass.
+ *
+ * The provider passthrough exists so a customer can see what the upstream said
+ * without Oxy having to interpret every provider's error vocabulary — but it is
+ * the single most likely place for an upstream credential to escape, because
+ * provider errors routinely echo the request that caused them. It is therefore
+ * a `.strict()` object of four fields with no room for headers or a request
+ * body, and its free text is refused if it looks like it contains a credential.
+ *
+ * Decided in: docs/adr/0010-public-api-compatibility.md.
+ */
+Object.defineProperty(exports, "__esModule", { value: true });
+exports.inferenceErrorSchema = exports.providerErrorPassthroughSchema = exports.upstreamErrorCategorySchema = exports.safeErrorTextSchema = exports.NON_RETRYABLE_INFERENCE_ERROR_CODES = exports.inferenceErrorCodeSchema = exports.INFERENCE_ERROR_CODES = void 0;
+const zod_1 = require("zod");
+const identifiers_1 = require("./identifiers");
+/**
+ * The closed set of inference error codes.
+ *
+ * Grouped by who must act: the caller (`invalid_request` … `idempotency_conflict`),
+ * the account owner (`insufficient_balance`, `spending_limit_exceeded`,
+ * `quota_exceeded`, `byok_credential_invalid`), routing/permission policy
+ * (`policy_violation`, `commercial_permission_denied`, `no_route_available`),
+ * and the platform or its upstreams (everything from `deployment_unavailable`).
+ *
+ * The platform group is NOT uniformly retryable, and that is the point of
+ * `provider_credential_invalid` sitting in it: an upstream that refuses the
+ * PLATFORM's own credential fails every identical retry until an operator
+ * rotates a key, so classifying it as `provider_error` would send every client
+ * into a retry loop against a request that cannot succeed.
+ *
+ * `provider_billing_refused` is in that group for the same reason and was found
+ * the same way — an upstream declining to bill OXY (Anthropic answers 402) has
+ * to be distinguishable from the customer's own balance running out, or the
+ * error tells them to go and top up an account that is not the one at fault.
+ */
+exports.INFERENCE_ERROR_CODES = [
+    'invalid_request',
+    'authentication_failed',
+    'permission_denied',
+    'insufficient_scope',
+    'model_not_found',
+    'unsupported_modality',
+    'context_length_exceeded',
+    'request_too_large',
+    'output_limit_exceeded',
+    'idempotency_conflict',
+    'insufficient_balance',
+    'spending_limit_exceeded',
+    'quota_exceeded',
+    'byok_credential_invalid',
+    'policy_violation',
+    'commercial_permission_denied',
+    'no_route_available',
+    'upstream_content_filtered',
+    'cancelled',
+    'rate_limited',
+    'deployment_unavailable',
+    'provider_error',
+    'provider_timeout',
+    'provider_overloaded',
+    'provider_credential_invalid',
+    'provider_billing_refused',
+    'service_unavailable',
+    'internal_error',
+];
+exports.inferenceErrorCodeSchema = zod_1.z.enum(exports.INFERENCE_ERROR_CODES);
+/**
+ * Codes for which an identical retried request cannot succeed.
+ *
+ * `rate_limited` and `quota_exceeded` sit on opposite sides of this line
+ * deliberately: a rate limit clears on its own within the window the response
+ * names, while a quota is an account-level ceiling that only a human raises.
+ * `cancelled` is here because the caller already withdrew the request; a client
+ * that retries it is contradicting its own cancellation.
+ *
+ * `byok_credential_invalid` and `provider_credential_invalid` are the same
+ * failure seen from the two sides of the BYOK boundary — the customer's own
+ * upstream credential and the platform's — and they are two codes rather than
+ * one because only the first names an action the customer can take. Both are
+ * non-retryable for the same reason: a credential an upstream has refused keeps
+ * being refused until somebody replaces it.
+ *
+ * `quota_exceeded` and `provider_billing_refused` divide along the same line:
+ * both are money, but one is the CUSTOMER's ceiling and the other is Oxy's
+ * account with an upstream. Reporting the second as the first is retryability-
+ * correct and diagnostically wrong, which is the worst combination — it reads
+ * as actionable and the action does nothing.
+ */
+exports.NON_RETRYABLE_INFERENCE_ERROR_CODES = [
+    'invalid_request',
+    'authentication_failed',
+    'permission_denied',
+    'insufficient_scope',
+    'model_not_found',
+    'unsupported_modality',
+    'context_length_exceeded',
+    'request_too_large',
+    'output_limit_exceeded',
+    'idempotency_conflict',
+    'insufficient_balance',
+    'spending_limit_exceeded',
+    'quota_exceeded',
+    'byok_credential_invalid',
+    'policy_violation',
+    'commercial_permission_denied',
+    'no_route_available',
+    'upstream_content_filtered',
+    'cancelled',
+    'provider_credential_invalid',
+    'provider_billing_refused',
+];
+const NON_RETRYABLE_CODE_SET = new Set(exports.NON_RETRYABLE_INFERENCE_ERROR_CODES);
+/* -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
+/*  Credential-shaped text                                                     */
+/* -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
+/**
+ * A run of characters long enough and opaque enough to BE a credential.
+ *
+ * The alphabet every bearer token, API key and base64/base64url secret is
+ * written in. The LENGTH floors below are what keep this from being an entropy
+ * heuristic: nothing here fires on a short word, so `authorization: none` and
+ * `api_key=***` read as what they are.
+ */
+const OPAQUE_ALPHABET = '[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9._~+/=-]';
+/**
+ * Words a producer substitutes FOR a credential.
+ *
+ * Excluded at the value position so a message whose secret has already been
+ * replaced is accepted. That acceptance is deliberate and is half the fix for
+ * issue #1027: the previous pattern refused `Authorization: [redacted]` — a
+ * correctly redacted string — which is precisely what pushed a producer into
+ * redacting the MARKER instead, and a marker-redacted string carries the secret
+ * and passes.
+ */
+const PLACEHOLDER_WORDS = 'redacted|removed|hidden|masked|scrubbed|elided|omitted|filtered|sanitized|sanitised|none|null|undefined|empty';
+/** A value position whose contents are a placeholder rather than a secret. */
+const NOT_A_PLACEHOLDER = `(?!(?:${PLACEHOLDER_WORDS})\\b)`;
+/**
+ * Header and parameter names that carry a credential, as any provider spells
+ * them.
+ *
+ * The prefix group is the whole point of the rewrite: `authorization` and
+ * `api_key` were matched literally, so `x-api-key`, `anthropic-api-key`,
+ * `x-goog-api-key` and `proxy-authorization` — the spellings an upstream
+ * actually echoes — went unrecognised.
+ */
+const CREDENTIAL_NAME = '(?:[a-z0-9]{1,20}[-_]){0,3}(?:api[-_]?(?:key|token|secret)|authorization|auth[-_]?(?:token|key)?|access[-_]?token|id[-_]?token|refresh[-_]?token|bearer[-_]?token|secret[-_]?key|private[-_]?key|client[-_]?secret|session[-_]?(?:id|key|token)|passwords?|passwd|cookie|credentials?|tokens?|secrets?)';
+/** An auth scheme sitting between the marker and the value. */
+const AUTH_SCHEME = '(?:(?:bearer|basic|token|apikey|digest)\\s+)?';
+/**
+ * The four ways a credential is recognisable in free text.
+ *
+ * Each is checked independently, so removing one signal does not clear the
+ * string — which is the failure #1027 reported. All four are load-bearing:
+ * `inference.errors.test.ts` has a case that only one of them catches, and
+ * deleting any one entry turns a test red.
+ */
+const CREDENTIAL_PATTERNS = [
+    // 1. A credential-bearing name ASSIGNED a value that is long enough to be a
+    //    credential. The value is anchored to the separator so a placeholder at
+    //    that position ends the match rather than being skipped over.
+    new RegExp(`(?:^|[^a-z0-9])${CREDENTIAL_NAME}["']?\\s*[:=]\\s*["']?${AUTH_SCHEME}${NOT_A_PLACEHOLDER}${OPAQUE_ALPHABET}{7,}`, 'i'),
+    // 2. A bearer token with no marker in front of it, which is how an upstream
+    //    quotes the header value alone.
+    new RegExp(`\\bbearer\\s+${NOT_A_PLACEHOLDER}${OPAQUE_ALPHABET}{7,}`, 'i'),
+    // 3. Token grammars that ARE credentials wherever they appear, marker or not.
+    //    This is the layer that survives a producer stripping the marker, and it
+    //    is a closed list of issued shapes rather than an entropy score, so a
+    //    request id or a base64 image fragment is unaffected.
+    //
+    //    Case-SENSITIVE on purpose: `AKIA`, `AIza` and `gh[pousr]_` are issued in
+    //    exactly that case, and matching them case-insensitively would start
+    //    firing on ordinary words.
+    /\b(?:sk-[A-Za-z0-9_-]{8,}|[sprk]k_(?:live|test)_[A-Za-z0-9]{8,}|AKIA[0-9A-Z]{12,}|ASIA[0-9A-Z]{12,}|AIza[0-9A-Za-z_-]{20,}|gh[pousr]_[A-Za-z0-9]{16,}|github_pat_[A-Za-z0-9_]{20,}|xox[abeprs]-[A-Za-z0-9-]{10,}|glpat-[A-Za-z0-9_-]{16,}|npm_[A-Za-z0-9]{20,}|eyJ[A-Za-z0-9_-]{6,}\.[A-Za-z0-9_-]{6,}\.[A-Za-z0-9_-]{4,})/,
+    // 4. A redaction placeholder standing NEXT TO a surviving opaque value — the
+    //    exact residue of the span redaction in #1027 (`{x-[redacted] <key>}`).
+    //    A correct redaction puts the placeholder WHERE the value was, so the two
+    //    never appear side by side; a marker-span redaction leaves them adjacent.
+    //    Both signals are required, which is what keeps an ordinary redacted
+    //    message from being refused.
+    new RegExp(`(?:[[<({]\\s*(?:${PLACEHOLDER_WORDS})[^\\])}>]{0,16}[\\])}>]|\\*{3,})[^A-Za-z0-9]{0,4}${OPAQUE_ALPHABET}{11,}`, 'i'),
+];
+/**
+ * Free text that is safe to hand a customer: bounded, and refused if it still
+ * looks like it carries a credential. Applied to BOTH the Oxy message and the
+ * upstream one — a leak is no less a leak for having been written by a provider.
+ *
+ * ## This is a last-resort REFUSAL, not protection
+ *
+ * A pattern over the OUTPUT cannot be the control that keeps a credential out of
+ * an error, and a producer that treats it as one has the hole #1027 reported.
+ * The only reliable control is redacting the KNOWN SECRET VALUE at the point
+ * where the producer still holds the bytes it sent — which is an adapter's job
+ * and is available to nobody else. This refinement exists to catch what that
+ * control missed, and nothing here is a licence to skip it.
+ *
+ * Two rules follow, and they are the whole reason this text is longer than the
+ * pattern it describes:
+ *
+ *  - **Never redact by replacing the span this pattern matched.** The span is
+ *    the MARKER; the secret is what follows it. OxyHQ/Kaana#3 measured the
+ *    result: `{x-api-key: <key>}` is refused, `{x-[redacted] <key>}` was
+ *    accepted, and both carry the key. Redaction made the leak worse by
+ *    converting "this string is dangerous" into "this string is fine".
+ *  - **This package deliberately ships no redaction helper.** One keyed on these
+ *    patterns would rebuild the same defect one layer up, and one that took the
+ *    secret as an argument would only restate what the producer already has.
+ *
+ * What it still cannot see, stated so nobody relies on it: a credential with no
+ * marker, no issued-token prefix and no placeholder beside it is bytes that look
+ * like a request id, and refusing those means refusing request ids.
+ */
+exports.safeErrorTextSchema = zod_1.z
+    .string()
+    .min(1)
+    .max(2000)
+    .refine((value) => !CREDENTIAL_PATTERNS.some((pattern) => pattern.test(value)), 'error text must not contain credential-shaped material');
+/**
+ * A coarse classification of an upstream failure (ADR 0010's `upstreamCategory`).
+ *
+ * Distinct from {@link providerErrorPassthroughSchema}, which carries the
+ * upstream's OWN code and text: this is Oxy's reading of what kind of failure it
+ * was, in a vocabulary that is the same across every provider, so a client can
+ * branch on it without knowing who served the request.
+ */
+exports.upstreamErrorCategorySchema = zod_1.z.enum([
+    'rate_limit',
+    'quota',
+    'timeout',
+    'overloaded',
+    'server_error',
+    'content_filter',
+    'invalid_request',
+    'authentication',
+    'unknown',
+]);
+/**
+ * What the upstream provider said, reduced to the four fields a customer can
+ * act on.
+ *
+ * `.strict()` is the security control here, not a tidiness preference: it means
+ * a producer cannot widen this by attaching `requestHeaders`, `curl`, `body` or
+ * `raw` and have it silently pass. Adding a field is a contract change with a
+ * version bump and a review, which is the point.
+ */
+exports.providerErrorPassthroughSchema = zod_1.z
+    .object({
+    provider: identifiers_1.inferenceProviderSlugSchema,
+    /** The upstream HTTP status, when the upstream spoke HTTP. */
+    status: zod_1.z.number().int().min(100).max(599).optional(),
+    /** The upstream's own error code, verbatim and uninterpreted. */
+    code: zod_1.z.string().max(128).optional(),
+    /** The upstream's message, subject to the same credential refusal. */
+    message: exports.safeErrorTextSchema.optional(),
+})
+    .strict();
+/**
+ * The error body every inference surface returns and every stream error event
+ * carries.
+ *
+ * `requestId` is always present — an error a customer cannot correlate with a
+ * log line is an error they have to reproduce to report.
+ */
+exports.inferenceErrorSchema = zod_1.z
+    .object({
+    /** See `version.ts`: this shape appears alone on the wire, so it is versioned. */
+    schemaVersion: zod_1.z.literal(1),
+    code: exports.inferenceErrorCodeSchema,
+    message: exports.safeErrorTextSchema,
+    retryable: zod_1.z.boolean(),
+    requestId: identifiers_1.requestIdSchema,
+    /** How long to wait before retrying. Only meaningful when `retryable`. */
+    retryAfterMs: zod_1.z.number().int().nonnegative().safe().optional(),
+    /** The request field at fault, for `invalid_request`. */
+    param: zod_1.z.string().max(128).optional(),
+    /** Present only when an upstream provider was reached and failed. */
+    upstreamCategory: exports.upstreamErrorCategorySchema.optional(),
+    providerError: exports.providerErrorPassthroughSchema.optional(),
+})
+    .superRefine((error, ctx) => {
+    if (error.retryable && NON_RETRYABLE_CODE_SET.has(error.code)) {
+        ctx.addIssue({
+            code: zod_1.z.ZodIssueCode.custom,
+            path: ['retryable'],
+            message: `${error.code} can never succeed on an identical retry, so it cannot be retryable`,
+        });
+    }
+    if (error.retryAfterMs !== undefined && !error.retryable) {
+        ctx.addIssue({
+            code: zod_1.z.ZodIssueCode.custom,
+            path: ['retryAfterMs'],
+            message: 'retryAfterMs tells a client when to retry, so it requires retryable: true',
+        });
+    }
+});