opencodekit 0.18.3 → 0.18.4

package/dist/index.js

@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ var __require = /* @__PURE__ */ createRequire(import.meta.url);
 
 //#endregion
 //#region package.json
-var version = "0.18.3";
+var version = "0.18.4";
 
 //#endregion
 //#region src/utils/errors.ts
@@ -2721,15 +2721,15 @@ const MODEL_PRESETS = {
 		}
 	},
 	recommend: {
-		model: "opencode/minimax-m2.5-free",
+		model: "github-copilot/gpt-5.4",
 		agents: {
 			build: "github-copilot/claude-opus-4.6",
-			plan: "openai/gpt-5.3-codex",
-			review: "openai/gpt-5.3-codex",
-			explore: "opencode/minimax-m2.5-free",
-			general: "github-copilot/claude-sonnet-4.6",
-			vision: "proxypal/gemini-3.1-pro-high",
-			scout: "proxypal/claude-sonnet-4-6",
+			plan: "github-copilot/gpt-5.4",
+			review: "github-copilot/claude-opus-4.6",
+			explore: "github-copilot/claude-haiku-4.5",
+			general: "github-copilot/gpt-5.3-codex",
+			vision: "github-copilot/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
+			scout: "github-copilot/claude-sonnet-4.6",
 			painter: "proxypal/gemini-3.1-flash-image"
 		}
 	}
@@ -2751,7 +2751,7 @@ const AGENT_DESCRIPTIONS = {
 	review: "Code review and debugging",
 	explore: "Fast codebase search",
 	general: "Quick, simple tasks",
-	looker: "Image/PDF extraction (cheap)",
+	painter: "Image generation and editing",
 	vision: "Visual analysis (quality)",
 	scout: "External research/docs",
 	compaction: "Context summarization"
@@ -2760,11 +2760,11 @@ async function promptCustomModels(targetDir) {
 	const configPath = join(targetDir, ".opencode", "opencode.json");
 	if (!existsSync(configPath)) return;
 	const config = JSON.parse(readFileSync(configPath, "utf-8"));
-	p.log.info(color.dim("Enter model IDs (e.g., opencode/grok-code, proxypal/gemini-3-pro-preview)"));
+	p.log.info(color.dim("Enter model IDs (e.g., github-copilot/gpt-5.4, proxypal/gemini-3.1-flash-image)"));
 	p.log.info(color.dim("Press Enter to keep current value\n"));
 	const mainModel = await p.text({
 		message: "Main session model",
-		placeholder: config.model || "opencode/minimax-m2.1-free",
+		placeholder: config.model || "github-copilot/gpt-5.4",
 		defaultValue: config.model
 	});
 	if (p.isCancel(mainModel)) {
@@ -3033,7 +3033,7 @@ async function initCommand(rawOptions = {}) {
 				{
 					value: "recommend",
 					label: "Recommended models",
-					hint: "claude-opus, gemini-pro (best quality)"
+					hint: "gpt-5.4, opus-4.6, sonnet-4.6, gemini-3.1"
 				},
 				{
 					value: "custom",

package/dist/template/.opencode/.version

@@ -1 +1 @@
-0.18.3
+0.18.4

package/dist/template/.opencode/package.json

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
     "type-check": "tsc --noEmit"
   },
   "dependencies": {
-    "@opencode-ai/plugin": "1.2.19"
+    "@opencode-ai/plugin": "1.2.20"
   },
   "devDependencies": {
     "@types/node": "^25.3.0",

package/dist/template/.opencode/skill/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -1,230 +1,367 @@
 ---
 name: requesting-code-review
-description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements - dispatches 5 parallel specialized review agents for comprehensive multi-angle review
-version: 1.0.0
-tags: [workflow, code-quality]
+description: Use when completing meaningful implementation work and needing a high-signal review pass before merge or release - dispatches scoped review agents, synthesizes findings, and routes follow-up actions by severity.
+version: 1.1.0
+tags: [workflow, code-quality, research]
 dependencies: []
 ---
 
 # Requesting Code Review
 
+## Overview
+
+Request review when work is **potentially shippable** and you need fresh scrutiny before moving on.
+
+This skill is for **asking for review**, not blindly obeying reviewers. The review output is advisory until verified against the codebase.
+
+**Core principle:** tighter review packet → better findings. Fewer files + clearer requirements beats dumping a vague diff at five agents.
+
 ## When to Use
 
-- After completing a feature/task batch and before moving on
-- Before merging to main or shipping changes
+- After completing a feature, bugfix, or meaningful task batch
+- Before merging to main or creating a PR
+- Before release or after a risky refactor
+- When you need multiple review angles on the same implementation
 
 ## When NOT to Use
 
-- During TDD RED commits or other intentionally failing states
-- When you only need a targeted answer to a specific question
+- During TDD RED phase or any intentionally failing state
+- When you only need a single targeted technical answer
+- When implementation is still obviously incomplete and review would be premature
 
+## Golden Path
 
+1. **Stabilize the work** — run the relevant verification first
+2. **Build a tight review packet** — what changed, requirements, diff range, notable risks
+3. **Choose review depth** — targeted, standard, or full multi-angle review
+4. **Dispatch review agents in parallel**
+5. **Deduplicate + synthesize findings**
+6. **Fix or push back with evidence**
+7. **Re-verify after changes**
 
-## When to Request Review
+## Review Packet
 
-**Mandatory:**
+Before dispatching any reviewer, assemble a packet with:
 
-- After completing a feature / task batch before moving to next
-- Before merge to main
+- **What changed** — 2-6 bullet summary
+- **Requirements / plan** — acceptance criteria or plan excerpt
+- **Diff range** — `BASE_SHA..HEAD_SHA`
+- **Risk hints** — auth, migrations, concurrency, data deletion, perf-sensitive path, etc.
+- **Verification already run** — typecheck/lint/test/build status
+
+Minimal packet template:
+
+```markdown
+What was implemented:
 
-**Not a review use case:**
+- [change 1]
+- [change 2]
 
-- When stuck on an approach → ask one agent a specific question directly
-- TDD RED commits (failing test commits are supposed to fail — don't review non-shippable state)
+Requirements:
 
-## How to Request
+- [acceptance criterion 1]
+- [acceptance criterion 2]
 
-### Step 1: Get git context
+Diff:
+
+- BASE_SHA: {BASE_SHA}
+- HEAD_SHA: {HEAD_SHA}
+
+Already verified:
+
+- [command] — [result]
+
+Risk areas:
+
+- [auth | migrations | concurrency | performance | none]
+```
 
-#### Review Setup Checklist
+## Review Depth Selection
 
-- [ ] Determine BASE_SHA and HEAD_SHA
-- [ ] Ensure requirements summary or plan link is available
+Choose the smallest review depth that still covers the risk.
+
+| Depth        | Use When                                    | Agents |
+| ------------ | ------------------------------------------- | ------ |
+| **targeted** | Small fix, one main risk, one area changed  | 1-2    |
+| **standard** | Typical feature/fix ready for merge         | 3      |
+| **full**     | Risky, cross-cutting, release-critical work | 5      |
+
+### Routing Rules
+
+- **targeted**: use 1-2 specific review prompts
+- **standard**: use security/correctness, tests/types, and completeness
+- **full**: use all 5 specialized review prompts
+
+Do **not** dispatch 5 reviewers by reflex for every tiny change. That produces noise, not rigor.
+
+## Step 1: Get Git Context
+
+### Setup Checklist
+
+- [ ] Determine `BASE_SHA` and `HEAD_SHA`
+- [ ] Summarize requirements or link plan
+- [ ] Decide review depth
 
 ```bash
 BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse origin/main 2>/dev/null || git rev-parse HEAD~1)
 HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
 ```
 
-### Step 2: Dispatch all 5 agents in parallel
+If work is still uncommitted, use the working tree review path and clearly say so in the review packet.
+
+## Step 2: Dispatch Reviewers in Parallel
 
-No tiering. 5 agents always. They run simultaneously — wall-clock cost is the same as 1.
+### A. Security + Correctness
 
 ```typescript
 task({
   subagent_type: "review",
   description: "Security + correctness review",
-  prompt: `Review this implementation for security vulnerabilities and correctness issues.
+  prompt: `Review this implementation for real bugs in changed code only.
 
-What was implemented: {WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}
-Requirements: {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}
+Review packet:
+{REVIEW_PACKET}
 
 Run:
   git diff {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
 
 Check for:
-- Security vulnerabilities (injection, auth bypass, secrets exposure, input validation)
-- Logic errors, off-by-one, null/undefined access
-- Missing error handling on async operations
+- Security vulnerabilities (injection, auth bypass, secrets exposure, missing validation)
+- Logic errors, null/undefined access, incorrect guards
+- Broken async/error handling
 - Data integrity issues
 
-Return: CRITICAL / IMPORTANT / MINOR findings with file:line references.`,
+Rules:
+- Review only changed code
+- Read full changed files for context before flagging issues
+- Do not speculate; explain the concrete failure scenario
+
+Return:
+- CRITICAL / IMPORTANT / MINOR findings
+- file:line references
+- brief reasoning for each finding`,
 });
+```
+
+### B. Performance + Architecture
 
+```typescript
 task({
   subagent_type: "review",
   description: "Performance + architecture review",
-  prompt: `Review this implementation for performance and architectural concerns.
+  prompt: `Review this implementation for performance and architecture issues.
 
-What was implemented: {WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}
+Review packet:
+{REVIEW_PACKET}
 
 Run:
   git diff {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
 
 Check for:
-- N+1 queries, unnecessary loops, missing indexes
-- Over-engineering (abstraction not earned by use cases)
-- Coupling that will make future changes painful
-- Missing caching where obviously needed
-- Bundle size regressions (if frontend)
-
-Return: CRITICAL / IMPORTANT / MINOR findings with file:line references.`,
+- Obviously expensive loops / N+1 / repeated work
+- Over-engineering or abstraction without clear value
+- Coupling that will make maintenance painful
+- Missing use of existing abstractions/utilities
+
+Rules:
+- Flag only meaningful issues
+- Skip style-only comments unless they cause structural problems
+
+Return:
+- CRITICAL / IMPORTANT / MINOR findings
+- file:line references`,
 });
+```
 
+### C. Type Safety + Test Quality
+
+```typescript
 task({
   subagent_type: "review",
-  description: "Type safety + test coverage review",
+  description: "Type safety + test review",
   prompt: `Review this implementation for type safety and test quality.
 
-What was implemented: {WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}
+Review packet:
+{REVIEW_PACKET}
 
 Run:
   git diff {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
 
 Check for:
-- Type safety holes (any casts, unsafe assertions, missing generics)
-- Tests that only test mocks instead of real behavior
-- Missing edge case tests (null, empty, boundary values)
-- Tests that would pass even if the implementation was wrong
-- Coverage gaps on critical paths
-
-Return: CRITICAL / IMPORTANT / MINOR findings with file:line references.`,
+- Unsafe assertions, type holes, lossy casts
+- Missing coverage on important branches or edge cases
+- Tests that only prove mocks, not behavior
+- Tests that would still pass if implementation were wrong
+
+Return:
+- CRITICAL / IMPORTANT / MINOR findings
+- file:line references`,
 });
+```
+
+### D. Conventions + Existing Patterns
 
+```typescript
 task({
   subagent_type: "review",
   description: "Conventions + patterns review",
-  prompt: `Review this implementation against codebase conventions.
+  prompt: `Review this implementation against existing codebase patterns.
 
-What was implemented: {WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}
+Review packet:
+{REVIEW_PACKET}
 
 Run:
   git diff {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
   git log --oneline -10
 
 Check for:
-- Inconsistent naming vs rest of codebase
-- Patterns that diverge from established codebase patterns
-- Missing or wrong use of shared utilities already in the codebase
-- File organization that doesn't match project structure
-- Documentation drift (code does X, docs say Y)
-
-Return: CRITICAL / IMPORTANT / MINOR findings with file:line references.`,
+- Divergence from existing code organization or naming
+- Reimplementation of existing utilities/helpers
+- Documentation drift where changed code no longer matches docs
+- New patterns that conflict with established ones
+
+Return:
+- CRITICAL / IMPORTANT / MINOR findings
+- file:line references`,
 });
+```
 
+### E. Simplicity + Completeness
+
+```typescript
 task({
   subagent_type: "review",
   description: "Simplicity + completeness review",
-  prompt: `Review this implementation for simplicity and completeness.
+  prompt: `Review this implementation for completeness and unnecessary complexity.
 
-What was implemented: {WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}
-Requirements: {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}
+Review packet:
+{REVIEW_PACKET}
 
 Run:
   git diff {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
 
 Check for:
-- Dead code (unreachable branches, unused variables, commented-out code)
-- Requirements that were specified but not implemented
-- Complexity that could be deleted without losing value
-- TODOs left in production code paths
-
-Return: CRITICAL / IMPORTANT / MINOR findings with file:line references.`,
+- Missing requirements or acceptance criteria
+- Dead code, TODOs, unreachable branches
+- Complexity that can be deleted without losing behavior
+- Behavior changes that appear unintentional
+
+Return:
+- CRITICAL / IMPORTANT / MINOR findings
+- file:line references`,
 });
 ```
 
-### Step 3: Synthesize findings
+## Dispatch Matrix
 
-#### Synthesis Checklist
+| Depth        | Reviewers to Run             |
+| ------------ | ---------------------------- |
+| **targeted** | Choose the 1-2 most relevant |
+| **standard** | A + C + E                    |
+| **full**     | A + B + C + D + E            |
 
-- [ ] Count Critical / Important / Minor findings
-- [ ] List file:line references for each issue
-- [ ] Mark readiness: proceed vs fix required
+## Step 3: Synthesize Findings
 
-After all 5 agents return:
+### Synthesis Checklist
+
+- [ ] Merge duplicate findings across reviewers
+- [ ] Keep the strongest explanation when multiple reviewers report same issue
+- [ ] Separate real blockers from optional improvements
+- [ ] Mark disputed / uncertain findings explicitly
+
+Output format:
 
 ```markdown
 ## Review Summary
 
-**Agents run:** 5
-**Critical:** [N] — BLOCK, fix before proceeding
-**Important:** [N] — Fix in this PR
-**Minor:** [N] — Track as improvements
+**Review depth:** [targeted | standard | full]
+**Agents run:** [N]
+**Critical:** [N]
+**Important:** [N]
+**Minor:** [N]
 
 ### Critical Issues
 
-[List with file:line, description, suggested fix]
+- `path/to/file.ts:123` — [issue + why it breaks]
 
 ### Important Issues
 
-[List with file:line, description]
+- `path/to/file.ts:123` — [issue]
+
+### Minor Issues
+
+- `path/to/file.ts:123` — [optional improvement]
+
+### Disputed / Needs Verification
+
+- [finding that may be wrong, plus what evidence would confirm it]
 
 ### Assessment
 
-[ ] Ready to proceed [ ] Fix required first
+- [ ] Ready to proceed
+- [ ] Fix required first
 ```
 
-### Step 4: Act on findings
+## Step 4: Act on Findings
 
-#### Remediation Checklist
+### Remediation Checklist
 
-- [ ] Fix all Critical issues before proceeding
-- [ ] Fix Important issues in this PR
-- [ ] Record Minor issues for later
+- [ ] Fix all Critical findings before proceeding
+- [ ] Fix Important findings in the current branch unless consciously deferred
+- [ ] Record deferred Minor findings somewhere durable
+- [ ] Push back on wrong findings with code/tests, not opinion
 
-| Severity      | Action                                   |
-| ------------- | ---------------------------------------- |
-| **Critical**  | Fix immediately before any other work    |
-| **Important** | Fix in this PR before merge              |
-| **Minor**     | Note in bead comments, fix later or skip |
+| Severity      | Action                                        |
+| ------------- | --------------------------------------------- |
+| **Critical**  | Fix immediately before any further work       |
+| **Important** | Fix now or explicitly defer with reason       |
+| **Minor**     | Track for later if not worth immediate change |
 
-Push back if reviewer is wrong — show code/tests that prove it works.
+If a finding looks wrong, verify it against the codebase before changing anything.
+
+## Step 5: Re-verify
+
+After fixing review findings, re-run the relevant verification commands.
+
+At minimum, use the commands appropriate for the project toolchain:
+
+- `npm run typecheck`
+- `npm run lint`
+- `npm test`
+- `npm run build` (if release/build-sensitive)
+
+Do not claim review is resolved until fresh verification passes.
 
 ## Placeholders Reference
 
-| Placeholder              | What to fill                            |
-| ------------------------ | --------------------------------------- |
-| `{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}` | Brief description of the feature/fix    |
-| `{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}` | Link to plan.md or requirements summary |
-| `{BASE_SHA}`             | Starting commit SHA                     |
-| `{HEAD_SHA}`             | Ending commit SHA                       |
+| Placeholder       | What to fill                     |
+| ----------------- | -------------------------------- |
+| `{REVIEW_PACKET}` | Tight review packet with context |
+| `{BASE_SHA}`      | Starting commit SHA              |
+| `{HEAD_SHA}`      | Ending commit SHA                |
 
 ## Integration with Workflows
 
-| Command | When review runs                      |
-| ------- | ------------------------------------- |
-| `/ship` | After all tasks complete + gates pass |
-| `/pr`   | Mandatory gate before push to GitHub  |
-| `/lfg`  | Between work and compound steps       |
+| Command | When review runs                     |
+| ------- | ------------------------------------ |
+| `/ship` | After work is complete and verified  |
+| `/pr`   | Before pushing or opening PR         |
+| `/lfg`  | Between execution and compound steps |
+
+## Common Mistakes
 
-All Critical issues must be resolved before proceeding. No exceptions.
+- Running 5 reviewers on a tiny one-file fix with no real risk
+- Sending vague prompts with no requirements or verification status
+- Treating reviewer output as automatically correct
+- Failing to deduplicate repeated findings
+- Skipping re-verification after review fixes
 
 ## After Review: Compound
 
-Run `/compound` after fixing review findings to capture:
+Run `/compound` after resolving review findings to capture:
 
-- What the review caught (patterns to watch for)
-- What false positives were dismissed (and why)
-- Any codebase conventions discovered during review
+- Patterns review caught that should be prevented earlier
+- False positives that should not be repeated
+- Newly discovered codebase conventions
 
-This is how the review step feeds the compound flywheel.
+That turns review from a gate into a feedback loop.

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
 	"name": "opencodekit",
-	"version": "0.18.3",
+	"version": "0.18.4",
 	"description": "CLI tool for bootstrapping and managing OpenCodeKit projects",
 	"keywords": [
 		"agents",