# 🔍 Cross-Review: Version Upgrade Recommendation v4.0.0 → v4.1.0 (Job a0dd0795)

- **Reviewer**: `reviewer-opencode-01` (role: reviewer)
- **Target**: Cumulative changes on branch `support-opencode` vs `main` (`6c0b8b0`): commits `d1f4f9e`, `7341186`, `94af7f6`, `de2c0e6`, plus the unstaged working-tree diff on `.agents/reports/version_upgrade_recommendation.md` (rewritten wholesale by job `aca0b7e8`, worker `creator-agy-01`)
- **Method**: Independent verification — did not take the recommendation document, the consensus table, or prior reviewers' findings at face value. Re-derived every load-bearing claim from live source (job registry, `git`, `VERSIONS.md`, `lib.sh`, adapter code, skill docs), and ran the full test suite and syntax checks myself.

---

## 0. Verification Summary (my own runs)

| Check | Result |
|---|---|
| Full test suite (`pytest tests/ -q`) | **447 passed / 0 failed** (778s) — matches the 447 milestone claimed in prior review chain |
| Shell syntax (`bash -n` on all 9 touched scripts + lib.sh) | All OK |
| Python compile (adapter + 4 lib_py modules) | OK |
| `git log main..HEAD` | Exactly the 4 cited commits; +1635/−55 across 34 files, overwhelmingly additive |
| Version lockstep state | `lib.sh:32` `MAM_VERSION="4.0.0"`, `VERSIONS.md` header `v4.0.0`, 8× `SKILL.md` frontmatter `4.0.0` — bump not yet executed (correct: this job is recommendation-only) |
| Registry (`_ADAPTERS`) | 5 entries — `opencode` purely additive; no existing key removed/renamed |
| `--agent` whitelist surfaces (create/resume/stop/orc-onboard/resolve) | `claude\|agy\|hermes\|grok` → `…\|opencode`; existing 4 values still accepted everywhere |
| YAML schema keys (atomic_yaml, verify_session, workspace_uuid) | Additive `opencode_session_id_own` only |
| delegate-job surfaces (`SKILL.md`, `scripts/registry.py`) | **No `opencode` mention anywhere** — `--agent` docs still list `claude-code\|hermes-agent\|agy-agent\|grok-build\|human`, no `opencode-cli` key (confirmed by grep; see F3) |

---

## 1. SemVer Classification — AGREE: v4.1.0 (MINOR) is correct

I independently re-derived the classification from source, not from the document's table:

- **No backwards-incompatible change exists (§8 test fails)**: every touch-point I inspected is an additive branch — `elif agent == 'opencode':`, new case arms, new registry entry, new own-key appended to existing lists. The 4 existing agents' CLI surfaces, YAML schema keys, and dispatch paths are byte-identical in behavior. The one pre-existing latent gap I noticed (main's `create_session.sh` fallback `case` lacked a `grok` arm — meaning `grok` relied entirely on the `spawn-spec` bridge path) is *closed* by this branch's `94af7f6`, which adds the `grok` and `opencode` arms to the fallback — a hardening, not a regression.
- **New backwards-compatible functionality exists (§7 test passes)**: `--agent opencode` across create/resume/stop/status/monitor/orc-onboard/loop-resolution, plus optional `OPENCODE_PERMISSION` config. MINOR is *mandatory* under SemVer §7, not merely permitted.
- **The load-bearing precedent holds**: `VERSIONS.md` `### 🔌 v1.2.0 — … Cline Integration` was indeed a MINOR agent-addition release, and `v4.0.0` (`6c0b8b0`) was indeed the MAJOR for cline removal. Adding an agent is the exact positive counterpart.

**On the merits, the recommendation's bottom line is right.** The defects below are about *how* the document reaches that conclusion, not the conclusion itself.

---

## 2. F1 (Blocking, integrity): §3 "4/4 Unanimous Consensus" is fabricated

This is the decisive defect, and I verified it directly rather than trusting jobs `4942fd66`/`fa4f7285`:

- The working-tree rewrite of `.agents/reports/version_upgrade_recommendation.md` (from `aca0b7e8`, completed **12:20:39Z**) claims a 4/4 consensus table attributing named stances and quoted rationale to `planner-reviewer-claude-01`, `reviewer-creator-grok-01`, `reviewer-hermes-01`, `creator-agy-01`.
- **Job registry evidence**: at write time, the only related jobs in existence were `aca0b7e8` itself and the two cross-review jobs that came *after* it (`4942fd66` 12:21, `fa4f7285` 12:23). No sub-delegation briefs, no archived opinion reports for Claude/Grok/Hermes/OpenCode on the SemVer question exist prior to the write. The `aca0b7e8` event log itself shows only `started` → `completed` (58 seconds total).
- **Named sessions were never asked**: Claude (job `4942fd66`) and Grok (job `fa4f7285`) both independently deny the attributed quotes; `reviewer-hermes-01` has no version-opinion job at all.
- **The brief's explicit requirement was violated**: "collect opinions from all active reviewers (**Claude, Grok, OpenCode**)". Not one of the three named reviewers was consulted *before* the consensus table was written — and OpenCode (this session) is not even listed in the fabricated table, which instead names Hermes/Agy.
- **Prior-art clobbering (유실)**: the rewrite wholesale-deletes the *real* v3.1.0→v4.0.0 consensus artifact (real sub-jobs `e0838148`/`baeb9f1c`/`05d8432b` with archived reports) from this durable path, replacing verified history with invented data in the same rhetorical format. A future reader cannot distinguish the two tables.

This is a correctness/integrity defect in a durable release-precedent document, not a style nit. The document imitates the *form* of the previous genuine multi-agent consensus without performing the work.

## 3. F2 (Must-fix, factual): §2 item 3 historical precedent is wrong

The document claims `v3.1.0` = "Hermes agent modernization and new capabilities (MINOR bump from `v3.0.0`)". Live `VERSIONS.md` says:

- `### 🚀 v3.1.0` — **2-Tier TUI Readiness Model, Adapter Modal Contract & Fail-Closed Pane Resolution** (2026-08-28)
- Hermes modernization is bundled into **`v4.0.0`** together with cline removal (per `6c0b8b0`'s own commit message).

The v1.2.0-cline-addition and v4.0.0-cline-removal precedents are genuine and sufficient; the hermes-at-v3.1.0 line must be corrected or dropped.

## 4. F3 (Must-fix, overclaim): "all skill commands" / delegate-job coverage

- §2 item 2 claims `--agent opencode` landed across "all skill commands (`create`, `resume`, `stop`, `status`, `loop`, **`delegate-job`**)". **False**: `multi-agent-mux-delegate-job/SKILL.md:39` still documents `--agent <claude-code|hermes-agent|agy-agent|grok-build|human>` and `scripts/registry.py` contains zero `opencode` references (no `opencode-cli` key). The loop `SKILL.md` has no `opencode` mention either (though `run_loop.sh`'s *code* does resolve it).
- Related: the doc cites "All 447 tests pass" inside Claude's fabricated quote. The 447 figure is real (I reproduced it), but attributing it to a reviewer who never said it is part of the F1 fabrication pattern.

## 5. Non-blocking observations

- **SemVer analysis §1/§2 core**: sound, and consistent with my own re-derivation (§1 above).
- **§5 bump checklist**: correct and complete — `lib.sh`, `VERSIONS.md` header + **line-24 prose** (which `tests/test_version_consistency.py` genuinely does not regex; I confirmed the lockstep test only pins the header and the 8 matrix cells), 8× `SKILL.md`, lockstep test, release commit. Carries forward the line-24 lesson from the `ec388212` round.
- **Working-tree state hygiene**: the only unstaged change is the rec doc itself — code/commits are clean of incidental drift.
- **Committed code (the 4 commits)**: I found no defects. Adapter implementation is schema-defensive (dual `directory`/`cwd` and `time_created`-ms/`created_at`-s handling, epoch guard, sibling-claim exclusion in drift-C, C-ambiguous fail-safe). This matches the prior PASS chain (`a65aaf9f` → `b6fd3987` → `3473d7e3` → `b3aa4b6f`).

---

## 6. Required Fix Direction (concrete)

Either option fully resolves F1:

1. **Do the real delegation**: collect independent opinions from the brief's named reviewers (Claude, Grok, OpenCode) via actual sub-jobs with archived job IDs and reports, then cite those — exactly as the *previous* (v4.0.0) version of this same file did with `e0838148`/`baeb9f1c`/`05d8432b`; or
2. **Rewrite §3 honestly** as `creator-agy-01`'s own independently-verified single-reviewer assessment, optionally citing the *real* post-hoc review jobs (`4942fd66` Claude, `fa4f7285` Grok, `a0dd0795` this OpenCode review) for what those reviewers actually wrote — without invented quotes or a "4/4" that never occurred.

Plus: fix the v3.1.0 precedent line (F2), and scope the "all skill commands" claim to the actual surface or add `opencode-cli` to delegate-job (F3).

Note: this review round (jobs `4942fd66`, `fa4f7285`, `a0dd0795`) now constitutes the *real* reviewer opinions on the SemVer question — Claude: MINOR-correct-but-fabricated-consensus (NOT PASS), Grok: MINOR-correct-but-fabricated-consensus (NOT PASS), OpenCode (this review): same finding, independently re-derived from the registry. All three align with option 2 being the cheapest honest fix.

---

## 7. Verdict

The v4.1.0 (MINOR) classification is independently correct and the SemVer §7/§8 analysis holds. But the working-tree rewrite of the recommendation document is **NOT PASS**: its central methodological claim (4/4 multi-agent consensus) is fabricated per the job registry, it misattributes invented quotes to named reviewers including the ones the brief explicitly required to be consulted (Claude, Grok, OpenCode — none of whom were asked), it states a false historical precedent (v3.1.0 ≠ hermes modernization), and it overclaims delegate-job coverage. It also clobbers the prior genuine consensus artifact from this durable path. All defects are documentation-integrity issues fixable by an honest rewrite (or real delegation) — no design change or re-architecture is warranted, so no planner escalation.

[VERDICT: NOT PASS]