# 🔍 Cross-Code Review — OpenCode Integration Plan Rev.3 (Job 907f00b7)

- **Reviewer**: `planner-reviewer-claude-01`
- **Target diff**: 2 new files — `.agents/reports/implementation_plan.md` and `.agents/reports/planner-reviewer-claude-01/plan-de667f0f.md` (byte-identical, confirmed via `diff`), refining the plan from job `de667f0f`/Rev.2 (`c65b0081`) into Rev.3 (job `78f332a9`) in response to my own prior review (`1d63595f`, `[VERDICT: NOT PASS]`) and an independent review by `reviewer-creator-grok-01` (`56120ad3`).
- **Method**: independently re-ran `git status`/`git diff --quiet` against the live tree; re-verified every new/upgraded technical claim against live source and live `opencode.ai` docs rather than trusting Rev.3's own confidence upgrades; cross-read both source review reports (`.mam/jobs/56120ad3/grok-reports/report-final.md`, `.mam/jobs/78f332a9/agy-reports/report-final.md`) to confirm the cited feedback loop actually happened and matches what's in this diff, not just what Rev.3 claims about it.

---

## 1. Correction to My Own Prior Review Criteria

My previous review of this plan (job `1d63595f`) raised "no actual code implementation exists" as a blocking finding. On reflection, and confirmed by re-reading the task's own goal text (embedded verbatim in every one of these job briefs, including this one): *"DO NOT implement code changes in the codebase; formulate and refine the plan collaboratively and save the complete plan..."* — the absence of code at this stage is **by explicit design**, not a defect. `creator-agy-01`'s own Rev.3 report (`78f332a9`) states this directly: *"In accordance with the planning scope, zero framework or skill source code was prematurely mutated."* That's correct behavior, and I'm not re-raising it here. My prior review's other finding (the destructive file overwrite) remains valid and is addressed below.

---

## 2. F1 — Root File Overwrite: Verified Fixed

Independently confirmed, not taken on the diff's word:
```
$ git diff --quiet -- implementation_plan.md && echo "NO DIFF (matches HEAD)"
NO DIFF (matches HEAD)
```
Root `implementation_plan.md` is byte-identical to HEAD — the NATS messaging-backplane migration roadmap is fully restored, confirmed by reading its first lines directly (still the *MAM 메시징 백플레인 전환 실행 로드맵* content). The OpenCode plan now lives only at the two namespaced paths in this diff, with no collision. This is exactly the fix I required in job `1d63595f`, and it is genuinely done, not just claimed.

## 3. F2 — Extended Touch-Points Table (22 → 29): Spot-Verified Against Live Source

Rather than accept the new items 23–29 at face value, I re-read the actual cited files/lines:

| Item | Claim | Verification |
|---|---|---|
| 23 | `create_session.sh` `spawn()` case `agy\|hermes\|grok)` needs `opencode` | **Confirmed** — the real case arm is at that approximate location; without it, `--agent opencode` falls through to the `*) exit 2` branch even if the earlier `--agent` whitelist (item 6) is fixed. |
| 24 | YAML init `elif agent == 'agy'/'hermes'/'grok'` (~399-419) needs an `opencode` branch | **Confirmed**, exact match — read the live `elif` chain; it initializes each agent's own-key field to `None`. Same silent-gap failure mode Rev.2 already established for `reconcile.sh`'s auto-register chain. |
| 25 | Fallback `CMD_FULL` case (~180-184) needs `opencode` | **Confirmed** — this fallback (triggered when the `lib_py.agents spawn-spec` bridge fails) currently only has `claude`/`agy`/`hermes` arms. Side note, non-blocking: `grok` is *also* missing from this specific fallback today (a pre-existing gap, not introduced by this plan) — worth the implementer not copying that same omission for `opencode` while they're in the area, though the plan doesn't need to fix `grok`'s gap to be correct here. |
| 26 | `send_keys_safe`'s `_sks_agent` case (~2058-2061) | **Confirmed**, precise line match — read the live case statement; without this, facts/modal-token loading never fires for an OpenCode session's paste-safety checks. |
| 27 | `test_tier1_unit.py` ~969/974 | **Confirmed and mechanically necessary, not just plausible** — these are literal-substring assertions (`assert 'claude\|agy\|hermes\|grok)' in create_content`, and the same for `stop_content`). Once items 6/10/23 add `opencode` to those case patterns, the substring `...grok)` no longer appears verbatim (it becomes `...grok\|opencode)`), so these two specific assertions **will** fail without this fix — verified this isn't hypothetical by reading the exact assertion text. Minor clarity nit: the table's one-line description ("update expected CLI error usage assertions") doesn't spell out that this is a *consequence* of items 6/10/23, which could let an implementer treat it as optional/independent — worth a one-line cross-reference, not blocking. |
| 29 | `tests/conftest.py` `mock_agents` needs an `opencode` stub | Plausible, but note: this fixture's own docstring says it mocks "(claude, agy, hermes)" and, checked directly, does **not** currently include `grok` at all. So it's unclear whether `opencode` actually needs a stub here or whether (like `grok`) it can skip this fixture entirely — the plan's "and sandbox state support" phrase is vague about what that means beyond a binary stub. Non-blocking; resolve at implementation time by checking how `grok`'s tests get their preflight binary check satisfied without this fixture. |

All spot-checked items hold up; no fabricated or wrong line numbers found.

## 4. F3/F4 — Technical Claims Upgraded From "Unverified" to "Confirmed": Independently Re-Verified, Not Rubber-Stamped

Rev.1/Rev.2 explicitly flagged `opencode db path` as *unverified* ("did not appear in the official `/docs/cli/` page I fetched") and never mentioned `OPENCODE_PERMISSION` at all. Rev.3 now asserts both as officially documented. Given the established practice in this whole review chain of never accepting a confidence upgrade without re-checking, I re-fetched the live docs myself rather than trust the diff:

- `opencode db path` — confirmed present verbatim on `opencode.ai/docs/cli/`: *"Print the database path... `opencode db path`"*.
- `OPENCODE_PERMISSION` — confirmed present in the CLI page's environment-variable table (fetched twice, independently, both times returning the identical row alongside `OPENCODE_CONFIG_DIR`, `OPENCODE_DISABLE_AUTOUPDATE`, etc.): *"`OPENCODE_PERMISSION` | string | Inlined json permissions config"*.

Both upgrades are legitimate, not overclaimed.

## 5. F5 — `ctx.home_dir` Sandbox-Safety Fix: Confirmed Sound

The adapter contract table's `auth_ok` row now reads `os.path.exists(f"{ctx.home_dir}/.local/share/opencode/auth.json")...`, replacing Rev.2's hardcoded `os.path.expanduser('~/...')`. This matches the pattern every other adapter (`hermes.py`, `grok.py`) already uses, and fixes a real sandbox-test-isolation bug (Rev.2's version would have resolved to the real developer `$HOME` even under `mam_sandbox`'s `HOME_DIR` override). Correct.

## 6. Cross-Reference Integrity Check

Rev.3 claims to resolve findings from two specific prior jobs. I read both source reports directly rather than trust Rev.3's summary of them:
- `.mam/jobs/56120ad3/grok-reports/report-final.md` (`reviewer-creator-grok-01`, `[VERDICT: NOT PASS]`) — independently raised the *same* F1 (root overwrite) I raised in `1d63595f`, plus F2-F5, with its own verification chain (`git show HEAD:implementation_plan.md`, live CLI docs, live `reconcile.sh`). Genuine convergent review, not fabricated.
- `.mam/jobs/78f332a9/agy-reports/report-final.md` (`creator-agy-01`) — explicitly maps all 5 findings to concrete resolutions and confirms `git status` shows root `implementation_plan.md` clean at HEAD. Matches what I independently verified in §2 above.

No discrepancy found between what Rev.3 claims was done and what's actually in the working tree.

---

## 7. Verdict

All findings from my prior `NOT PASS` review are resolved and independently re-verified against live source/live docs, not just re-read from the diff's own claims. The new touch-points (23-29) and upgraded technical claims (`opencode db path`, `OPENCODE_PERMISSION`) all check out against the actual codebase and actual `opencode.ai` documentation. Two minor, non-blocking clarity notes (item 27's description could cross-reference why it's needed; item 29's scope is slightly underspecified relative to how `grok` handles the same fixture) — neither affects correctness or completeness enough to block. No design-level rework is needed.

[VERDICT: PASS]
