[seth-wood]

Objective

• After answering AskUserQuestion / ask_user with a typed Other reply, "Scroll to User Message" jumped to the original prompt instead of the steering text.
• Fixes "Scroll to user message" ignores user message in response to AskUserQuestion #63942.

Solution

• Typed Other answers are stored on an accepted session elicitation linked to a ToolCall, not as UserMessage.
• Added AcpThread::is_user_authored_scroll_target in crates/acp_thread/src/acp_thread.rs. It matches a UserMessage, or a ToolCall whose id is referenced by an accepted session elicitation (scope.tool_call_id).
• Turn-end, fallback, and prev/next user-message navigation in crates/agent_ui/src/conversation_view/thread_view.rs share that matcher.
• Left the harmless "Scroll to user message" icon on the first message alone.

Sibling of #63901. That PR skips <task-notification> UserMessage entries. This PR counts accepted elicitation ToolCalls. They touch the same rposition / scroll_to_user_message_index sites. A merge should keep both.

Testing

• Yes. Added test_scroll_to_user_message_lands_on_ask_user_elicitation_answer and ran:

cargo test -p agent_ui --features test-support test_scroll_to -- --nocapture

Result: 3 passed (including the new test). The synthesized thread is [UserMessage, ToolCall, Elicitation, AssistantMessage]. Scroll lands on item_ix == 1 (the tool call), not 0.

• Reviewers can run the same cargo test command, or follow the steps in "Scroll to user message" ignores user message in response to AskUserQuestion #63942.
• Tested via unit tests on Linux. Scroll targeting is not platform-specific.

Screen.Recording.2026-09-12.at.9.07.08.AM.mov

Self-Review Checklist:

• I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
• Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
• The content adheres to Zed's UI standards (UX/UI and icon guidelines)
• Tests cover the new/changed behavior
• Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable

---

Release Notes:

• Fixed "Scroll to User Message" so it lands on typed answers to AskUserQuestion

[smitbarmase]

Thanks for working on this! Our contribution guidelines ask for screenshots or recordings for changes visible in the UI. Can you add them?

[seth-wood]

@smitbarmase absolutely. will update these accordingly for you. thanks for flagging.

[smitbarmase]

Thanks for fixing this.

• Have you tested it with Zed’s built-in agent too? I don’t think scrolling to an ask_user answer works there yet. The tool card uses a scoped ID like 1:call_1, but the question request sends call_1, so the new lookup won’t match them. I think we need to figure out where the id mismatch is happening and also cover it in test.

• Also, I think accepting a link to continue in the browser should not make its tool a user-message scroll target. URL elicitations also become Accepted, but that does not mean the user submitted an answer. Lets handle that case too?

Thanks again.

[seth-wood]

Hey @smitbarmase thanks for your guidance on these. See below for a rundown of the issues and the fixes based on the suggestions here.

Built-in agent: The mismatch was in ToolCallEventStream::request_elicitation in crates/agent/src/thread.rs. It built the elicitation's tool call ID from the raw tool_use_id (call_1), but the tool card uses the scoped tool_call_id (1:call_1). It now passes the scoped ID, so the two match. I added an end-to-end test in crates/agent/src/tests/mod.rs that runs ask_user through a native thread with a fake model and checks that the elicitation targets the card's ID. That test fails without the fix. I also extended the ask_user_tool test to assert the ID. I checked this in a real Zed build with the built-in agent as well: answering with Other and then clicking "Scroll to User Message" lands on the answer.

URL elicitations: tool_call_has_accepted_user_answer now only counts accepted form-mode elicitations. Accepting a URL elicitation no longer makes its tool a scroll target. There's a new test for this in conversation_view.rs.

Let me know if anything else is off here. Happy to run through it again.

[smitbarmase]

Thanks! I made rebase since it had conflicts.

[tredondo]

@smitbarmase , thanks as well for your guidance on PRs! Would you have a moment to review mine?