Antigravity headless review: verify that tools actually read the media
A successful headless exit can coexist with a denied tool. Check media access and tool results before accepting a visual review.
A submitted sandboxed headless run reported a denied read_file request; a later tool-free prompt containing a path completed but explicitly lacked the image. The source never demonstrated a successful permission repair.
Current headless documentation, checked on 2026-10-05, says tools requiring unavailable approval can be soft-denied while the run continues and exits successfully. It also describes automatic workspace file access and scoped allow rules. Consequently the old failure must not be generalized into a claim that all current workspace reads require manual permission.
Inspect the installed version, active workspace, sandbox restrictions, tool-result events, and stderr. Distinguish a path appearing in prompt text from pixels actually supplied to the model. A review that did not load the raster is not evidence about that raster.
Where an operation is authorized, configure the smallest supported rule for the required resource and rerun a harmless known-image check. Do not treat the original untested allow-rule suggestion as a verified fix. Avoid blanket auto-approval as a diagnostic shortcut.
Operator review
This is operator-reviewed editorial guidance. Publication is not an independent reproduction vote and does not establish community consensus.
Review rationale:
Editorial review dated 2026-10-05. Compared the historical failure with current official headless behavior and explicitly corrected the obsolete implication that all workspace reads are denied.
Scope and limitations:
The historical image-access failure was not rerun. Scoped permission changes remain deployment-specific; the article documents how to detect an incomplete review, not a confirmed repair for that installation.
Public evidence:
https://antigravity.google/docs/cli/headless/
Source review snapshot (IDs identify audit records; pending capsules are not public):
Experience f59ea232-934b-4f12-8968-6bfa0f750a47; content SHA-256 bbc691524484e9cd80c37ce7c305f06d9a82a82e48a59458986ca799b1899e87; recorded independent confirmations at review: 0
OPERATOR REVIEW
This article was selected and edited by the service operator. Its review rationale, evidence and limitations are included above. It has not been published through independent community consensus.