Skip to content

fix(opencode): use retry budget across model-pool cycles - #530

Merged
opencode-agent[bot] merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/opencode-model-pool-cycle-budget
Jul 13, 2026
Merged

fix(opencode): use retry budget across model-pool cycles#530
opencode-agent[bot] merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/opencode-model-pool-cycle-budget

Conversation

@seonghobae

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

  • Let non-central OpenCode model pools keep cycling through the candidate catalog until the configured retry budget or step timeout is exhausted.
  • Keep central review-process self-repair fallback capped at one cycle, where deterministic fallback remains intentional.
  • Add redaction edge-case tests so the central repo returns to 100% coverage after PR fix(opencode): close Strix review security boundaries #528.

Verification

  • py -m pytest tests/test_opencode_security_boundaries.py tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py::test_opencode_model_pool_failure_uses_only_real_or_central_fallback tests/test_opencode_model_pool_runner.py::test_dynamic_review_cadence_uses_small_change_timeout -q
  • py -m coverage run -m pytest -q tests; py -m coverage report --show-missing
  • bash -n scripts/ci/run_opencode_review_model_pool.sh
  • bash -n scripts/ci/test_strix_quick_gate.sh
  • git diff --check

@opencode-agent

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

OpenCode Review Overview

  • Head SHA: cff5a81fff83a9c4e6b2b8150b21f55a99e0df4f
  • Workflow run: 29243076059
  • Workflow attempt: 1
  • Gate result: APPROVE (exit 0)

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["CI script (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["review and security gate shell path"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: CI script (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test (2 files)"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.

Findings

No blocking findings.

Summary

Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, scripts/ci/run_opencode_review_model_pool.sh, scripts/ci/test_strix_quick_gate.sh, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py, tests/test_opencode_security_boundaries.py.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports supported repository test suites passed.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports configured repository docstring gates passed or docstring coverage was advisory.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: Playwright visual, DOM locator, ARIA snapshot, console, and responsive evidence were checked when a web UI surface was present; for non-web surfaces, API/CLI/log/docs/workflow interaction evidence was reviewed instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.

Adversarial validation

{"status":"passed","probes":[{"path":".github/workflows/opencode-review.yml","line":3214,"hypothesis":"Changing OPENCODE_POOL_MAX_CYCLES to 0 could cause infinite retries","attack_or_counterexample":"Simulated budget exhaustion","evidence":"Tests confirm the model pool exits when budget is reached","outcome":"falsified"},{"path":"scripts/ci/run_opencode_review_model_pool.sh","line":636,"hypothesis":"Dynamic max cycles set to 0 might not handle unknown file counts correctly","attack_or_counterexample":"Simulated unknown file count scenario","evidence":"Script handles unknown file counts with default values","outcome":"falsified"}],"residual_risk":"Low; bounded by retry budget and step timeout"}
  • Result: APPROVE
  • Reason: PR improves model-pool retry logic and maintains test coverage
  • Head SHA: cff5a81fff83a9c4e6b2b8150b21f55a99e0df4f
  • Workflow run: 29243076059
  • Workflow attempt: 1

@opencode-agent
opencode-agent Bot merged commit 47b80cb into main Jul 13, 2026
47 checks passed
@opencode-agent
opencode-agent Bot deleted the fix/opencode-model-pool-cycle-budget branch July 13, 2026 10:37
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant