RFD: Forking of existing sessions

docs/docs.json

@@ -91,7 +91,11 @@
           "rfds/about",
           {
             "group": "Draft",
-            "pages": ["rfds/session-list", "rfds/session-config-options"]
+            "pages": [
+              "rfds/session-list",
+              "rfds/session-config-options",
+              "rfds/session-fork"
+            ]
           },
           { "group": "Preview", "pages": [] },
           { "group": "Completed", "pages": ["rfds/introduce-rfd-process"] }

docs/rfds/session-fork.mdx

@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+---
+title: "Forking of existing sessions"
+---
+
+Author(s): [@josevalim](https://github.com/josevalim)
+Champion: [@benbrandt](https://github.com/benbrandt)
+
+## Elevator pitch
+
+> What are you proposing to change?
+
+We propose adding the ability to "fork" a new session based on an existing one.
+This will allow us to use the current conversation as context to generate pull
+request descriptions, summaries, etc. without polluting the user history.
+
+## Status quo
+
+> How do things work today and what problems does this cause? Why would we change things?
+
+Imagine we want to summarize the current conversation to use it in a future chat. If we send a message
+asking for the summary, it will become part of its context, affecting future user interactions.
+Therefore we want to be able to fork a session, issue additional messages, and then close the fork.
+
+## What we propose to do about it
+
+> What are you proposing to improve the situation?
+
+To add a "session/fork" method.
+
+## Shiny future
+
+> How will things will play out once this feature exists?
+
+We will be able to implement functionality that requires using the current chat
+without polluting its history, ranging from summaries to potentially subagents.
+
+I can also see this feature being extended in the future to support an optional
+message ID, so the fork happens at a specific message, allowing clients to implement
+functionality like editing previous messages and similar.
+
+## Implementation details and plan
+
+> Tell me more about your implementation. What is your detailed implementation plan?
+
+We propose to add a new "session/fork" method. Agents must declare this option is
+available by returning `session: { fork : {} }` in its capabilities. The object is reserved
+to declare future capabilities, such as forking from a specific message, a tool call, or similar.
+
+Then the client would be able to request a fork of the current session:
+
+```json
+{
+  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
+  "id": 1,
+  "method": "session/fork",
+  "params": {
+    "sessionId": "sess_789xyz"
+  }
+}
+```
+
+And the agent would respond with optional data such as config options, the same as `session/load`.
+
+A proof of concept is available here: https://github.com/zed-industries/claude-code-acp/pull/145
+
+## Frequently asked questions
+
+> What questions have arisen over the course of authoring this document or during subsequent discussions?
+
+**Q: Should a new method be introduced or should "session/new" be expanded?**
+
+They must be different because they will effectively require different options.
+For example, "session/new" has options such as capabilities and MCP which are not
+recommended to be set when forking, as the context being forked was built with other
+tools, and forking may accept a messageId for checkpoints.
+
+### What alternative approaches did you consider, and why did you settle on this one?
+
+None. This proposal is inspired by the abilities exposed in Claude Agent SDK. It must be validated against other agents too.
+
+## Revision history
+
+2025-11-17: Mentioned capabilities format, updated FAQ.
+2025-11-20: Added request format and updated capabilities format.