This looks like it is on the right track. And the screen shots you posted on Slack look great!

Most of my feedback can be summed up with:

"This is totally fine for a draft PR. Here is a suggestion for how to clean things up when this is ready for a proper review. (But is more than likely something you were probably already planning on doing anyways, since this is just a WIP Draft.)"

There's a lot of good stuff in this PR, and it's super-exciting to see the Teams and Invites functionality come together! But I think this PR still needs a bit more work before it is checked-in.

As far as a next step, let's try to see if we can find a time to review this PR in a VC meeting so we can discuss tradeoffs more quickly. (I can come in a couple hours earlier any day of the week, just let me know with some notice.)

Overall, each of my PR comments probably boils down to one of the following:

1. A starting point for discussing how we want to build Cody Pro. e.g. not so much a concrete suggestion, but more double checking how we want to approach certain aspects of the design or UX.

2. Engineering rigor types of things that I (annoyingly) won't budge on. We are going to create a Cody Pro codebase that we will be proud of, and be constructed in such a way that anybody on the team will be able to easily and safely make changes to. This will require adding some layers of abstraction or formalizing things to a higher degree than immediately seems required. But alas, "sorry not sorry".

3. Engineering rigor types of things that I (perhaps reluctantly) will budge on. While I have suggestions for how to make the code easier to read or maintain, you don't need to accept every single one. (Nor should you?) Maybe I'm just factually wrong. Or it's a matter of opinion, and you just prefer it some other way. Or we both acknowledge that something is wrong, but it just doesn't make sense to deal with it at this time.

Unfortunately I cannot say for certain which things fall into camp 2 vs. camp 3. (In the extremes, some things are clearly "wrong", IMO and other things I could easily be convinced are A-OK.)

But it'll probably take some time for us to norm on where exactly we want to draw the line here. e.g. coming up with a standard for code quality that we want to shoot for on the Cody Prime team. Or the degree to which we rely on sophisticated data types or design patterns in order to make it easier to write correct code.

Anyways, if you could try to address the PR feedback that you agree we can figure out the best way to address some of these other issues next week. (e.g. I'll try to send out a PR with a TypeScript "API client library" for the SSC backend API, which will address some of the things I call out.)

Approving to not hold up the Teams and Invites stuff any more.

Though as we continue to flesh out this part of the codebase, let's try to pin down the specific patterns we do and do not want to follow in order to keep things simple and maintainable. (e.g. using the withAuthenticatedUser() wrapper, and similar things.)