See the merge request above for the fix i wanted.
In there i also added a question about adding the skipping of adding directives to certain types/field/mutations.

Hey, @lucvankessel 👋
Would you mind putting here an example of the mutation inputs you want to generate with entgql? Are these input directives or field-level directives?

Just to make sure you're not blocked on this, check out my SchemaHook example at: #3173 (comment)

hey @a8m,
This is a simple example of what i want:

input CreateProjectInput {
  name: String! @CustomDirective("some arg")
}

This input is then generated from the mutations in the schema.
Right now i can generate the inputs without the directive through the mentioned mutations annotation.
This MR does what i want it to do.
In the future it might also be nice to have the ability to skip these directives on either the type, create or update inputs through the SkipMode that is already used to skip certain fields from being added to these generated inputs.

(i havent tested it yet but, )I dont think the use of SchemaHooks will work in this case due to mutation fields having the directives field used when generating them. In buildMutationInputs in schema.go this is the current field definition:

def.Fields = append(def.Fields, &ast.FieldDefinition{
				Name:        camel(f.Name),
				Type:        namedType(scalar, f.Nullable),
				Description: f.Comment(),
			})

So directives are never added to them to be able to be generated (or atleast that seems to be the case from what i read, i do not know the entire flow of generating fields in entgql yet so i can be terribly wrong ofcourse)

Hope this answers your question.

Hey @a8m,
Can i help you guys in any way to fast track the progress on this issue?

Made this [MR]{https://github.com/ent/contrib/pull/543} a few days ago with a proposed backwards compatible solution. let me know what you think and if it needs changing etc.