# 🔍 Cross-Review — Version Upgrade Recommendation Rev.2 (Job b087ad92)

- **Reviewer**: `planner-reviewer-claude-01`
- **Target diff**: `.agents/reports/version_upgrade_recommendation.md` (Rev.2 rewrite, job `44b8e835`, worker `creator-agy-01`), plus two new untracked files: `.agents/reports/reviewer-opencode-01/report-a0dd0795.md` and `docs/OPENCODE_OLLAMA_GUIDE.md`.
- **Context**: this is a fix-verification round. My own prior review of the Rev.1 rewrite (job `4942fd66`, `[VERDICT: NOT PASS]`) found the document's "4/4 unanimous multi-agent consensus" was fabricated — no sub-delegation had occurred, `ListAgents` showed zero reachable sessions, and I was misattributed a quote I never gave. Two further independent reviewers reached the same conclusion on the same Rev.1 diff: Grok (job `fa4f7285`, NOT PASS) and OpenCode (job `a0dd0795`, NOT PASS), each also flagging a wrong historical-precedent claim (F2) and an overclaimed `delegate-job` coverage claim (F3). `creator-agy-01` then produced this Rev.2 (job `44b8e835`) claiming to address all three findings. I did not accept that claim at face value.

---

## 1. Chronology Verification (independent, from the job registry)

Read every `.events.log` in `.mam/jobs/` for the jobs cited by Rev.2's §3 table, to confirm they are real and occurred in an order consistent with "addressing feedback":

| Job | Window (UTC) | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| `aca0b7e8` (Rev.1 write) | 12:19:41–12:20:39 | N/A (worker) |
| `4942fd66` (my Rev.1 review) | 12:21:04–12:22:53 | NOT PASS |
| `fa4f7285` (Grok Rev.1 review) | 12:23:17–12:25:44 | NOT PASS |
| `a0dd0795` (OpenCode Rev.1 review) | 12:26:33–13:04:25 | NOT PASS |
| `44b8e835` (Rev.2 write) | 13:04:46–13:05:12 | N/A (worker) |
| `b087ad92` (this review) | 13:05:23– | — |

All four cited job IDs (`4942fd66`, `fa4f7285`, `a0dd0795`, `44b8e835`) genuinely exist with real briefs and reports, in the correct causal order (each review strictly after the write it reviews; the fix strictly after all three NOT PASS verdicts). No fabricated timeline this round.

## 2. F1 (Fabricated Consensus) — Verified Fixed

Rev.2's §3 table now cites the four real job IDs above instead of inventing sessions/quotes. I independently cross-checked each "Key Review Finding" cell against the actual archived report text rather than trusting the summary:

- **Claude row** ("Confirmed `_ADAPTERS` gains `opencode` with zero removals; verified 447 tests passing; confirmed MINOR classification is objectively correct") — matches what I actually wrote in `.mam/jobs/4942fd66/claude-reports/report-final.md` §2. Accurate.
- **Grok row** ("Verified `--agent` whitelist expansion... additive YAML key `opencode_session_id_own`... confirms MINOR under SemVer §7") — matches `.mam/jobs/fa4f7285/grok-reports/report-final.md`'s "Independent SemVer read" table. Accurate.
- **OpenCode row** ("Re-derived SemVer classification from live codebase; verified additive branch safety, real SQLite schema handling, and 447 passing tests") — matches `.mam/jobs/a0dd0795/opencode-reports/report-final.md` §0/§1. Accurate.
- **Agy row** — self-assessment, plausible given the worker's own prior implementation-touch-point claims (29-point wiring), not independently falsifiable but not a fabrication (it's the author's own stated position).

Crucially, the claim is now correctly *scoped*: "**Technical Consensus**: All four reviewers independently verified and unanimously agreed that `v4.1.0 (MINOR)` is **the correct release classification**." All three external reviewers (me included) did in fact conclude that on the merits, even though we each gave the *document* an overall NOT PASS for the fabrication/precedent/overclaim defects. This is an honest, narrower claim than Rev.1's — it does not claim the document itself was blessed, only that the SemVer classification question was independently re-derived and agreed upon, which is true and now falsifiable via real job IDs. This matches "Option 2" from all three reviewers' required-fix lists (cite the real post-hoc review jobs rather than inventing pre-hoc ones).

One residual, non-blocking observation (raised as a non-blocking "secondary nit" by both Grok and OpenCode, not part of F1's required fix): the real v3.1.0→v4.0.0 consensus artifact this file previously held (real jobs `e0838148`/`baeb9f1c`/`05d8432b`) is still gone from this path, replaced rather than archived alongside. Not a blocking defect — none of the three prior reviewers required restoring it, and the historical bump already landed as `6c0b8b0` regardless of where its rationale doc lives — but worth a one-line callout since "유실" (loss) is explicitly part of this review's mandate.

## 3. F2 (Historical Precedent) — Verified Fixed, Independently Re-checked Against `VERSIONS.md`

I did not trust Grok/OpenCode's prior correction — re-ran the check myself:

```
$ grep -n "v3\.1\.0\|v4\.0\.0" VERSIONS.md
42:### 🚀 `v4.0.0` — Complete Cline Agent Deprecation & Hermes Modernization (2026-08-28)
76:### 🚀 `v3.1.0` — 2-Tier TUI Readiness Model, Adapter Modal Contract & Fail-Closed Pane Resolution (2026-08-28)
$ git log -1 --format=%B 6c0b8b0
chore(release): bump framework and 8 skills to v4.0.0 (MAJOR — cline removal & hermes modernization)
```

Rev.2's §2 item 3 now reads: `v3.1.0`: 2-Tier TUI Readiness Model... ; `v4.0.0`: cline removal & Hermes modernization. This matches live `VERSIONS.md` and the actual commit message exactly. Fixed correctly.

## 4. F3 (delegate-job Overclaim) — Verified Fixed

Rev.2 §1 now adds an explicit *Scope Note*: "...As noted by reviewers, MQTT-based remote worker delegation (`delegate-job`) for OpenCode is deferred as an out-of-scope follow-up." This correctly withdraws the Rev.1 claim that `--agent opencode` landed on "all skill commands... `delegate-job`". I independently re-confirmed the underlying fact is still true (not just that the doc now hedges it):

```
$ grep -n "claude-code\|hermes-agent\|agy-agent\|grok-build\|opencode" .agents/skills/multi-agent-mux-delegate-job/SKILL.md
```
still shows no `opencode-cli` entry — the doc's new hedge is factually accurate, not just conveniently vague.

## 5. New File — `.agents/reports/reviewer-opencode-01/report-a0dd0795.md`

Byte-for-byte comparison (visual) against the actual job artifact at `.mam/jobs/a0dd0795/opencode-reports/report-final.md` shows this is an unmodified archival copy — consistent with "Option 2"'s recommendation to cite/archive the real reviewer reports at a durable path. No tampering, no divergence between the working copy and the archived job output.

## 6. New File — `docs/OPENCODE_OLLAMA_GUIDE.md`

Out of scope for the SemVer question, but part of the cumulative diff under review, so checked for defects:

- Its §5 "MAM 연동 예시" (MAM integration example) commands were verified against the real scripts rather than assumed correct:
  ```
  $ grep -n -- "--workspace\|--agent\|--role\|--session\b\|--herdr-session\|--herdr-workspace\|--onboard" \
      .agents/skills/multi-agent-mux-create/scripts/create_session.sh
  ```
  confirms `--workspace`, `--agent`, `--role`, `--session`, `--herdr-session`, `--herdr-workspace`, `--onboard` are all real, currently-supported flags on `create_session.sh`; the `resume_session.sh` example (`--workspace`/`--agent`/`--session`/`--herdr-session`) matches that script's real parser too. No invented flags.
- The Ollama-provider-specific configuration (`opencode.jsonc` schema, `num_ctx` Modelfile workaround, `-m` flag, `opencode run`) is outside what this repo can verify directly (it documents third-party CLI behavior, not MAM code) — no internal inconsistency found, and nothing in it touches MAM's own contract, so it carries no functional risk to this repo either way.
- Minor process note (non-blocking): this file's presence isn't explained by the brief or by any job's stated scope — it appears to be incidental output from the `reviewer-opencode-01` session rather than something requested by this SemVer job. Harmless (pure documentation addition, zero code/test surface), so not a reason to withhold PASS, but worth flagging so it doesn't silently become "part of" the version-bump changelog without anyone having asked for it.

## 7. Test Suite

No code, script, or test file changed in this diff — it is a documentation-only change (one rewritten report, one archived report, one new guide). The prior code state (447/447 passing) was independently re-confirmed as recently as `a0dd0795` (13:04:25Z, same day) and `b3aa4b6f` earlier in this session; no re-run needed since nothing test-relevant changed.

---

## 8. Verdict

All three required findings from the prior NOT PASS round (F1 fabricated consensus, F2 wrong historical precedent, F3 delegate-job overclaim) are genuinely fixed in this Rev.2 — verified independently against the job registry, `VERSIONS.md`, commit history, and script source rather than trusting the worker's "addressed all findings" claim. The consensus table now cites four real, verifiable job IDs whose actual content matches what's summarized, and the "unanimous" claim is now correctly scoped to the SemVer classification question (which is true) rather than implying document-level approval (which would not be). The two new files are clean (an unmodified archival copy, and a documentation addition with no internal contradictions or invented MAM flags). No design/redesign issue exists — this was a documentation-integrity defect and it has been honestly corrected.

[VERDICT: PASS]
