docs(opencode): add implementation plan, integration guide updates, and peer review consensus reports

2026-08-29 14:58:55 +09:00
parent 6c0b8b0084
commit d1f4f9eb9e
10 changed files with 586 additions and 1 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+# Report: Job c65b0081 — Refined OpenCode Integration Plan (Rev.2) per `creator-agy-01` Challenge
+
+**Durable output (updated in place)**: [.agents/reports/implementation_plan.md](../../../.agents/reports/implementation_plan.md)
+
+## Summary
+
+`creator-agy-01` challenged Rev.1's §3/§6 (their job `ebf97869`) — not disputing the plan's core research (SQLite storage, no pre-assigned session ID, `anomalyco/opencode` identity all stand unchanged), but flagging two architectural blind spots. **Both independently re-verified against live source and accepted — no `[REBUT:]` filed**:
+
+1. **§6's "reconcile.sh drift-C is generic" claim was false.** Read `reconcile.sh:507-780` directly: drift-C materialization is three separate, hardcoded, copy-pasted per-agent blocks (`claude` 634-671, `agy` 673-720, `hermes` 722-780), not a generic `adapter.discover()` loop. **Went beyond the challenge's own evidence**: independently discovered `grok` has *no* materialize block at all — because it always pre-assigns its session ID at spawn (confirmed in `grok.py`), so it only ever needs the shared C0 *confirmation* path (line 614-632), never post-spawn *discovery*. Since OpenCode cannot pre-assign (already established in Rev.1), it belongs in the `hermes`/`agy` bucket, not `grok`'s — it needs its own bespoke block. Rewrote §6 with a concrete illustrative code block mirroring `hermes`'s structure, and weighed two implementation options (an explicit new block vs. a generic drift-C refactor), recommending the explicit block for this PR and filing the generic refactor as an out-of-scope follow-up (consistent with the brief's "don't implement" constraint and with keeping this PR's blast radius limited to OpenCode rather than touching 3 other agents' already-battle-tested drift paths).
+2. **§3's 18-item touch-point table omitted 4 files**: `lib_py/atomic_yaml.py:132`, `lib_py/verify_session.py:69`, `lib_py/workspace_uuid.py` (3 locations), and `reconcile.sh` (4 more locations: 2 auto-registration loops, the entry-init `elif` chain, `OWN_KEY_BY_AGENT`). Verified all cited lines directly and confirmed each failure mode described. **Also independently traced a plausible worse failure mode** (an uncaught `KeyError` in `reconcile.sh`'s C0 block crashing reconciliation for *every* agent, not just OpenCode) by reading `create_session.sh:396,419`'s `session_id_source` assignment — ruled it out (OpenCode rows are correctly stamped `'pending-discovery'`, never reach the C0 dict-index), confirming the actual failure mode is the same silent data-completeness gap the challenge described, not a crash. Added all 4 files as items 19-22, raising the touch-point count from 18 to 22.
+
+Also updated: §7 (lockstep requirement widened to 22 locations + the new drift-C block), §8 (added a dedicated drift-C integration test mirroring the existing Hermes reconcile tests — "the test that would have caught this blind spot mechanically instead of requiring a manual challenge to find it"), §9 (Definition of Done checklist extended), §10 (effort estimate revised from ~1 day to ~1.5 days to price in the real cost of the caught blind spot).
+
+Full Rev.2 text is in the durable plan linked above (new "Rev.2 Changelog" section at the top, rewritten §6, extended §3/§7/§8/§9/§10).
+
+[VERDICT: N/A — planning artifact, review pending]