Summary
I built a small unofficial mobile companion for T3 Code and would like to discuss whether any part of this should become an upstream-supported path, docs link, or set of smaller reliability improvements.
Repo: https://github.com/JSvandijk/t3code-mobile
The goal is not to turn T3 Code into a different product. The project is intentionally narrow: browserless access to an existing T3 Code session on Android, plus an optional PWA/proxy path for installable mobile usage.
What it currently does
- Android WebView wrapper without browser chrome
- One-time base URL setup with reconnect support
- Accepts full T3 pairing links, but stores only the base server URL
- Keeps navigation scoped to the configured T3 host instead of becoming a generic browser
- Copyable diagnostics for HTTP, SSL, and network failures
- Inline image upload support that is reinjected after SPA navigation
- Optional HTTPS/PWA proxy with
GET /__t3mobile/health, upstream latency reporting, and smoke coverage
- Local WebView harness modes for HTTP, bad-cert HTTPS, and redirect behavior
Current evidence
From a clean local checkout after npm install:
npm test passed
- JS syntax checks passed
- ESLint passed
manifest.json parse check passed
- release checks passed for version 1.1.0
- HTML unit tests passed: 18/18
- proxy smoke test passed
The repo also includes docs around upstream fit and scope: https://github.com/JSvandijk/t3code-mobile/blob/main/docs/UPSTREAM-FIT.md
Why I am opening an issue instead of a large PR
This is product scope, not a tiny bug fix. The contributing guide is clear that large feature PRs are unlikely to be accepted and that non-trivial changes should start with an issue.
A few possible upstream-friendly paths:
- Keep the mobile app external, but document the remote-access expectations that companion clients should rely on.
- Extract small reliability/diagnostics improvements from the app experience into T3 Code itself.
- Add a short community/experimental companion note if maintainers want users to know this exists.
- Do nothing upstream for now, but use the app as real-world feedback for LAN/tailnet/mobile connection reliability.
Questions
- Is an unofficial mobile companion something the project would want to acknowledge at all?
- If yes, would maintainers prefer a docs-only PR, smaller remote-access reliability PRs, or keeping it fully external?
- Are there mobile/client behaviors that would be useful for T3 Code to support more formally, such as stable diagnostics or health endpoints?
I am happy to keep any follow-up small and evidence-backed rather than submitting a large app import.
Summary
I built a small unofficial mobile companion for T3 Code and would like to discuss whether any part of this should become an upstream-supported path, docs link, or set of smaller reliability improvements.
Repo: https://github.com/JSvandijk/t3code-mobile
The goal is not to turn T3 Code into a different product. The project is intentionally narrow: browserless access to an existing T3 Code session on Android, plus an optional PWA/proxy path for installable mobile usage.
What it currently does
GET /__t3mobile/health, upstream latency reporting, and smoke coverageCurrent evidence
From a clean local checkout after
npm install:npm testpassedmanifest.jsonparse check passedThe repo also includes docs around upstream fit and scope: https://github.com/JSvandijk/t3code-mobile/blob/main/docs/UPSTREAM-FIT.md
Why I am opening an issue instead of a large PR
This is product scope, not a tiny bug fix. The contributing guide is clear that large feature PRs are unlikely to be accepted and that non-trivial changes should start with an issue.
A few possible upstream-friendly paths:
Questions
I am happy to keep any follow-up small and evidence-backed rather than submitting a large app import.