Skip to content

fix(opencode): retry invalid control output - #446

Merged
opencode-agent[bot] merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
codex/opencode-retry-invalid-control
Jul 11, 2026
Merged

fix(opencode): retry invalid control output#446
opencode-agent[bot] merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
codex/opencode-retry-invalid-control

Conversation

@seonghobae

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

  • keep the OpenCode model pool cycling through high-sensitivity review candidates until a valid current-head control block is emitted or the bounded retry/step timeout fires
  • remove the one-cycle cap that produced MODEL_OUTPUT_UNAVAILABLE after a single invalid/no-control cycle on naruon#889
  • avoid sleeping after the final per-model attempt, preserving retry budget for the next candidate/cycle

Evidence

  • Observed ContextualWisdomLab/naruon#889 current-head run 29138830506 attempt 2 fail after coverage-evidence succeeded: MODEL_OUTPUT_UNAVAILABLE: OpenCode did not change the pull request review state. OpenCode model pool did not produce a successful current-head control block before the model-pool step ended.
  • Same log showed OpenCode model pool reached configured max cycle count 1 without a valid control conclusion.

Verification

  • py -m pytest tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py tests/test_opencode_workflow_shell_syntax.py -q -> 18 passed, 1 skipped
  • py -m compileall -q scripts tests -> pass
  • py -m pytest -q -> 294 passed, 5 skipped
  • Git Bash: bash -n scripts/ci/run_opencode_review_model_pool.sh -> pass
  • Git Bash: bash -n scripts/ci/strix_quick_gate.sh && bash -n scripts/ci/test_strix_quick_gate.sh -> pass
  • YAML parse for .github/workflows/*.yml -> pass
  • git diff --check -> pass
  • codegraph sync . && codegraph status . -> index OK

@opencode-agent

opencode-agent Bot commented Jul 11, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

OpenCode Review Overview

  • Head SHA: dbb94a31ee8fbde486ffef3f9e3d15a3296a56be
  • Workflow run: 29142606910
  • Workflow attempt: 1
  • Gate result: APPROVE (approval step)

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, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.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.

  • Result: APPROVE
  • Reason: Validated OpenCode retry logic improvements
  • Head SHA: dbb94a31ee8fbde486ffef3f9e3d15a3296a56be
  • Workflow run: 29142606910
  • Workflow attempt: 1

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: run_opencode_review_model_pool.sh"]
  S2 --> I2["review and security gate shell path"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: CI script: run_opencode_review_model_pool.sh"]
  R2 --> V2["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
  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, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.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.

  • Result: APPROVE
  • Reason: Validated OpenCode retry logic improvements
  • Head SHA: dbb94a31ee8fbde486ffef3f9e3d15a3296a56be
  • Workflow run: 29142606910
  • Workflow attempt: 1

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: run_opencode_review_model_pool.sh"]
  S2 --> I2["review and security gate shell path"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: CI script: run_opencode_review_model_pool.sh"]
  R2 --> V2["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@opencode-agent
opencode-agent Bot enabled auto-merge (squash) July 11, 2026 06:30
@opencode-agent
opencode-agent Bot merged commit 7dfc30f into main Jul 11, 2026
47 checks passed
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