Use this guide when the user explicitly asks to upgrade an existing integration to GPT-5.5. Pair it with current OpenAI docs lookups. The default target string is gpt-5.5.
Before applying this bundled guide for a latest/current/default model upgrade, run node scripts/resolve-latest-model-info.js from the OpenAI Docs skill directory.
If the command returns modelSlug: "gpt-5p5", continue with this bundled guide and use references/prompting-guide.md when prompt updates are needed.
If the command returns a different modelSlug, fetch both the returned migrationGuideUrl and promptingGuideUrl and use them as the current source of truth instead of the bundled references.
If the command fails, metadata is missing, or either remote guide cannot be fetched, continue with bundled fallback references and say the remote freshness check was unavailable.
If the user explicitly named a target model, preserve that target and use current docs only to check compatibility or caveats.
update only the prompts that are directly tied to that model usage
do not automatically upgrade older or ambiguous model usages that may be intentionally pinned, such as historical docs, examples, tests, eval baselines, comparison code, or low-cost fallback/routing paths. Unless the user explicitly asks to upgrade all model usage, leave those sites unchanged and list them as confirmation-needed
prefer prompt-only upgrades when possible
if the upgrade would require API-surface changes, parameter rewrites, tool rewiring, provider migration, or broader code edits, mark it as blocked instead of stretching the scope
Search for model strings, client calls, and prompt-bearing files.
Include inline prompts, prompt templates, YAML or JSON configs, Markdown docs, and saved prompts when they are clearly tied to a model usage site.
Pair each model usage with its prompt surface.
Prefer the closest prompt surface first: inline system or developer text, then adjacent prompt files, then shared templates.
If you cannot confidently tie a prompt to the model usage, say so instead of guessing.
Classify the source model family.
Common buckets: GPT-5.4, GPT-5.3-Codex or GPT-5.2-Codex, earlier GPT-5.x, GPT-4o or GPT-4.1, reasoning models such as o1 or o3 or o4-mini, third-party model, or mixed and unclear.
Decide the upgrade class.
model string only
model string + light prompt rewrite
blocked without code changes
Run the compatibility gate.
Check whether the current integration can accept gpt-5.5 without API-surface changes or implementation changes.
Check whether structured outputs, tool schemas, function names, and downstream parsers can remain unchanged.
For long-running Responses or tool-heavy agents, check whether phase is already preserved or round-tripped when the host replays assistant items or uses preambles.
If compatibility depends on code changes, return blocked.
If compatibility is unclear, return unknown rather than improvising.
Apply the upgrade when it is in scope.
Default replacement string: gpt-5.5.
Keep the intervention small and behavior-preserving.
Start from the current reasoning effort when it is visible unless there is a measured reason to change it.
For in-scope changes, update the model string and directly related prompts.
For blocked or unknown changes, do not edit; report the blocker or uncertainty.
Summarize the result.
Current model usage
Model-string updates
Reasoning-effort handling
Prompt updates
Structured output and formatting assessment
Tool-use assessment when the flow uses tools, retrieval, or terminal actions
Phase assessment when the flow is long-running, replayed, or tool-heavy
Compatibility check
Validation performed
Output rule:
For each usage site, state the starting reasoning-effort recommendation.
If the repo exposes the current reasoning setting, recommend preserving it first unless current OpenAI docs say otherwise.
If the repo does not expose the current setting, recommend not adding one unless current OpenAI docs require it.
the existing prompts are already short, explicit, and task-bounded
the workflow does not rely on strict output formats, tool-call behavior, batch completeness, or long-horizon execution that should be validated after the upgrade
there are no obvious compatibility blockers
Default action:
replace the model string with gpt-5.5
preserve the current reasoning effort
keep prompts unchanged
validate behavior with existing tests, realistic spot checks, or an existing eval suite when one is already available
avoid broad prompt cleanup unrelated to the upgrade
for research workflows, add citation rules, retrieval budgets, missing-evidence behavior, and validation guidance from the prompting guide
for dependency-aware or tool-heavy workflows, add prerequisite checks, missing-context handling, explicit tool budgets, stop conditions, and validation guidance
for coding or terminal workflows, add repo-specific constraints, acceptance criteria, and concrete validation commands
for multi-agent support or triage workflows, add task ownership, handoff, completeness, and stopping criteria
for long-running Responses agents with preambles or multiple assistant messages, explicitly review whether phase is already handled; if adding or preserving phase would require code edits, mark the path as blocked
do not classify a coding or tool-using Responses workflow as blocked just because the visible snippet is minimal; prefer model string + light prompt rewrite unless the repo clearly shows that a safe GPT-5.5 path would require host-side code changes
Before applying or recommending a model-and-prompt-only upgrade, check:
Can the current host accept the gpt-5.5 model string without changing client code or API surface?
Are the related prompts identifiable and editable?
Does the host depend on behavior that likely needs API-surface changes, parameter rewrites, provider migration, or tool rewiring?
Would the likely fix be prompt-only, or would it need implementation changes?
Is the prompt surface close enough to the model usage that you can make a targeted change instead of a broad cleanup?
Do strict structured outputs, schemas, or downstream parsers still have an explicit contract?
For long-running Responses or tool-heavy agents, is phase already preserved if the host relies on preambles, replayed assistant items, or multiple assistant messages?
Are latency, token, or price assumptions validated by tests, realistic spot checks, or an existing eval suite rather than inferred from general model positioning?
If item 1 is no, items 3 through 4 point to implementation work, or item 7 is no and the fix needs code changes, return blocked.
If item 2 is no, return unknown unless the user can point to the prompt location.
Important:
Existing use of tools, agents, or multiple usage sites is not by itself a blocker.
If the current host can keep the same API surface and the same tool definitions, prefer model string + light prompt rewrite over blocked.
Reserve blocked for cases that truly require implementation changes, not cases that only need stronger prompt steering.
Do not claim token savings without task-level validation.
propose validation with existing tests, realistic spot checks, or existing eval suites
This guide may not:
move Chat Completions code to Responses
move Responses code to another API surface
migrate SDKs, APIs, IDE configuration, shell hooks, plugins, or provider-specific tooling
rewrite parameter shapes
change tool definitions or tool-call handling
change structured-output wiring
add or retrofit phase handling in implementation code
edit business logic, orchestration logic, SDK usage, IDE configuration, shell hooks, or plugin integration behavior except for model-string replacements and directly related prompt edits
If a safe GPT-5.5 upgrade requires any of those changes, mark the path as blocked and out of scope.