8.5 KiB
🔍 Cross-Code Review — OpenCode Integration Plan Rev.3 (Job 907f00b7)
- Reviewer:
planner-reviewer-claude-01 - Target diff: 2 new files —
.agents/reports/implementation_plan.mdand.agents/reports/planner-reviewer-claude-01/plan-de667f0f.md(byte-identical, confirmed viadiff), refining the plan from jobde667f0f/Rev.2 (c65b0081) into Rev.3 (job78f332a9) in response to my own prior review (1d63595f,[VERDICT: NOT PASS]) and an independent review byreviewer-creator-grok-01(56120ad3). - Method: independently re-ran
git status/git diff --quietagainst the live tree; re-verified every new/upgraded technical claim against live source and liveopencode.aidocs 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 onopencode.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 alongsideOPENCODE_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 in1d63595f, plus F2-F5, with its own verification chain (git show HEAD:implementation_plan.md, live CLI docs, livereconcile.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 confirmsgit statusshows rootimplementation_plan.mdclean 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]