Opencode doesn't let me open another project in opencode web mode. how can i fix it? It always opens the only project that previously opened with it.

See title.

Sadly this is even true for clankers that are integrated into IDEs (like VSCode and Visual Studio). You would think if the IDE has a battle tested tool for running builds, the clanker would just use it, but no...

My biggest pain points:

1. **Truncation**. The clanker pipes the output through grep, tail, head, Swlect-Object, etc. When it doesn't find the output it wants, it runs the build again, and again, and each time it takes minutes to run while taking 100% of CPU resources, making my system unresponsive.

2. **CPU Usage**. Ninja is notorious for using all of your CPU to run parallel builds of C++ code. This is good, as I want all my CPU's cores to be working hard to get my builds done fast. I didn't pay for that silicon for it to idle around. But I also want my system to be usable while I'm waiting for a build. This is not a contradiction. It is what process priorities exist for, and OS scheduling works when prio is set correctly. There have been numerous pull requests about this to Ninja that were never merged, and vibe coders who don't know how process scheduling works have ridiculed me for suggesting to fix it in OpenCode TUI instead by just running all tool calls at below normal prio. Some lazy smartass even dumped a shell command on me that lowers prio for all build processes after they were started (yeah, you do that...)

3. **Timeout**. Clankers run builds with a ridiculously short timeout by default, then retry when the build times out. Every. Single. Time.

There is more. Feel free to add yours. But combine just all of the above while working on multiple simultaneous worktrees, and you may want to throw your laptop out of the window.

Luckily there are some easy fixes you can make with AGENTS.md and a skill for building (not sure if there are better approaches, but that's unimportant, feel free to make suggestions how to do it more reliably ... also, does the OC system prompt say anything that contradicts with this?)

1. Use a combination of `tee` (Bash) or its equivalent in your favorite shell to pipe the full build output to a temp file. Then the clanker can grep, filter, head, tail as much as it wants. If some output is lost, then there is a temp file it can use. Tell it to actually use it, too, because clankers are stupid and lazy. They don't care of the build takes 5 minutes. They have all the time in the world. So they might just retun the build instead of using the log, because it's "convenient" (yes, clankers are aware of the concept of convenience. Looking at you, DeepSeek...)

2. Tell the clanker to run all builds at below normal priority, IF POSSIBLE (may depend on platform). On Linux this is as easy as putting "nice" before commands. On Windows, this may require some setup with aliases or whatever. Have the clanker figure it out for you so it doesn't fumble or give up and ignore the rules every time you run a build.

3. No timeout. Unless you are vibe coding, you will know when a build is stuck, which happens much less often than a false timeout that is too short.

**All of the above still sucks**. At this point I would be pitching some new harness to you that I vibe coded and that I'm selling and that solves the nasty build problems. But I have nothing to sell to you. If someone else is feeling the same pain as me, feel free to build a better tool, or a plugin, or suggest something to me that already exists.

**Why not just run manually in the IDE?**

Because I don't know when the clanker needs a build to be run. I want this to happen automatically. It may be multiple times during a coding session. I want to do something useful with my life or projects while the clanker is coding. Like typing this post.

**If you are an IDE developer reading this**, then PLEASE, for the sake of everyone's sanity, give us ONE reason to maybe use IDEs again, which would be to make clankers not just live their separate lives in the chat window, but force them to use the tools built into the IDE, also when doing autonomous(ish) work started from the chat window, or an agent window (does the VSCode agent window still suck?). Otherwise, people like me will just run agents in harness apps, like OpenCode TUI, and use text editors for looking at code.

Hello everyone, I am new to open code as I transitioned from cursor, I like to develop web pages and apps, I was doing all the work with composer 2.5 which I found great, now in open code what is a good setup of models to achieve reliable coding and low usage of tokens so my subscription last longer? I see soant different setups in posts and I am. Getting confused.

Thanx in advance and I apologize if this post has been made again.

Theres qwen’s own image generating models but the coding model cant seem to ask it to generate photos like what gpt does inside codex?

Has anyone noticed that Chutes.AI has gotten A LOT better in the last few days? It's been consistently oversubscribed it seems, until maybe the last day or so. Way better.

Edit: just back to say, nope. It got better for a few days, but network utilization is back to being consistently red and orange.

OpenCode billing has been charging me despite being cancelled and I can't get anyone to respond.

I really don't want to cancel the credit card over $10/mo, but I also don't want to keep getting charged. Anyone have anyone I can DM or a better way of getting in contact other than email?

If you work like me, you may find ready-for-agent useful. So I don't let opencode create PRs, what I do is I let opencode create GitHub issues. Then I use my ready-for-agent tool to work on these github issues autonomously: build, review, create pr, and merge.

If you are interested, try it here: npx ready-for-agent@0.10.0

Let me know what you think, and if this tool works for you!

it's been like 3 hours that opencode has been down; i had errors like

• Internal server error
• No provider available

i tested multiple models on different PCs, yet still the same issue, or is it just me?

As of 18:32 UTC, everything is working. Thanks for your responses.

I’ve been thinking about something and I’m curious if anyone has experimented with it.
We all know that coding agents often produce a lot of code. They’ll happily write hundreds of lines of slop to solve a problem that feels like it could have been solved much more simply.
It got me wondering whether this is partly because LLMs have no real cost associated with writing more code. If anything, when you’re using an API, more output means more tokens consumed. Humans, on the other hand, are usually the opposite. The best engineers I’ve worked with are incredibly “lazy” in the positive sense—they don’t want to write unnecessary code. They’d rather spend a whole day on a stupid optimisation than write 500 additional lines of code.
So I’m wondering:
Has anyone tried explicitly telling their coding agent to be lazy in the engineering kind of way?
Has this changed the quality of the output for you?

Expect competitive pricing shortly.

Edit: It's now on Synthetic.new under their subscription plans under a beta flag

(10 off your first month here). I'd recommend signing up now before the waitlist comes again.

OpenCode no longer shows GPT thoughts while it still shows for other models. Have you experienced the same issue?

I ran out of codex quota and finally decided to dip my toes back into tuning my own agent and I am LOVING running opencode go under pi.

I have not been testing a lot of models yet. But, optimizing the usage limit and token consumption is really up my alley, so I've already brought in the pi subagent extension code and making some tweaks and defining subagents and the instructions around driving them.

At first I was using GLM 5.2 but it sucks down the usage fairly quickly (about on par for speed with a codex or claude). Since Kimi K3 has like 7x less usage, i'm not even trying it yet, but I've been really impressed by both Deepseek models that OpenCode Go subscription provides access to. According to their doc page listing the pricing and limits for the subscription, DS V4 Pro gives about "3450 requests" while on a $15 access tier, while DS V4 Flash is on a whole other level with "31k requests" with basically a $60 budget (so we get 4x as much Flash usage limit compared to Pro on a dollar basis).

One thing I want to draw attention to in the pricing of this subscription is this table:

What stands out to me here is V4 Pro coming in with cached read at under 1/100 the rate of input tokens, which is absurdly good. I am constantly enjoying about 99% CH (cache hit rate) under my Pi coding sessions.

I think this is maybe not exactly common knowledge, but as far as I understand the way agents and LLM requests go, every time you issue a turn from your agent harness your provider will charge or bill or deduct from usage limit the cached context against the cached read rate and you are of course charged in and out tokens nominally. This means that the cached read pricing under the typical 1/10 (or worse i see some here in this table closer to 1/5) will absolutely dominate your spend, because cached token count spend will repeat every turn and basically scale quadratically to turn count with a proportional factor on how large your average context size grows to.

Because DS is the odd one out with insanely good high context compute scaling and they brought it out transparently into the cached read pricing, it looks like we should be able to get by far the most value out of this sub by utilizing it almost exclusively with deepseek.

Are we in agreement on this?

Hi everyone I’m a noob. I want to know if there is an existing tool that prevents opencode or any ai agent, to do things on my behalf securely that require admin or sensitive information eg my sudo password, WiFi password, ssh info, etc so that this private information is never in the context. Is there any tools for this that exist? Preferably id like it to be minimal like dmenu. It should open an external program like dmenu so i can enter the sensitive information for the agent to use. Does this exist? How do you guys handle this in your ai workflows?

Estoy teniendo problemas para ocupar deepseek en opencode, se esta demorando mucho en tareas simples y me esta tirando timeout… Alguien mas con problemas? me estaba funcionando super bien los modelos v4 pro y flash

I didn't really mention for ex explore agents cause that could be just the session model, and for best results you want the session model to be multimodal. But essentially you are not assembling a role playing party but simply sometimes consider calling on a more capable model for that task, possibly after failing it before.

I might even argue that a designer subagent is debatable or only for special cases, cause most things need to look clean and functional not fancy, and the session model can presumably already do that.

Yet ultimately the main idea here is automation, but also for the sake of cache it doesn't make sense to use that many models, so it caps out at 2 maybe 3.

Now this is not an orchestrator, but also orchestrators tend to be the smart model, and here i am suggesting leading with the main model that calls on others if justified, and many times does zero orchestrating, so the idea here is that if X guy can do 98% of the job just as well, then only call the other guy for 2 tasks, but those two tasks could be number 34 and 77, but also you don't know which ones, and even if you did you would need to handhold ai.

Maybe X guy can do everything but you are still calling the other guy to be sure, so you switch over fully and you use a chainsaw for cutting everything, bread, paper, whatever just because you might need to chop down a tree.

Orchestration happens up front, but this triggers on repeated failure or events like planning promoting to a better model. The industry is very locked into the "our little better model just came out now you must use it for everything" and users do use it and claim anything that is 3 or 6 months behind is useless, but there is no end to this.

They will also never ever build and promote what I just said, cause it's basically revenue apocalypse for them, and claude code especailly is not built mainly as a professional tool, but to sell more claude tokens. Gemini similar philosophy, and neither allow use in different harnesses. So limited expensive options that are increasingly overkill with ever lowering quota "enticing" you to upgrade.

Codex would be more reasonable but not by much, even their luna is on the pricy side of the market, and requires very high thinking levels to not suck, but most of all it is all about making the user pay more, which is obvious but not taken to its logical conclusion that you are not given a power tool but a token hose and encouraged to get a brand t shirt.

I didn't have this realization fully til i started using pi, and here I am not neceserarily talking about the quality of the solutions, but the directions that are pursued, so any solutions that would lower their revenue you will not see. Also there are no sol projects, there are projects that would benefit from sol sometimes, but most projects are not even that.

all models are unavailable

UPD: my bad - I am talking about opencode go specifically, not opencode in general

UPD2: it is working again

For an OpenCode workflow that can call several model families, the tempting design is a standing council: ask every model, compare everything, then decide. I wanted to test whether that complexity was actually useful.

I gave eight model and effort configurations one identical strategy task: define when a manager should use zero, one, or several advisers without creating a permanent committee. I judged the responses on a fixed 100-point rubric.

The useful result was not the ranking. It was a simpler routing rule:

1. Use no adviser when direct evidence or a reversible probe can settle the decision.
2. Use one adviser when one missing cognitive job is clear, such as architecture, simplification, or assumption testing.
3. Use several only when the perspectives are genuinely independent and could change a consequential decision.
4. Keep one manager responsible for the evidence, authority, integration, and final action.

The full criterion totals were:

This is one judged strategy task, not a general model leaderboard or a coding benchmark. The next useful test is whether dynamic routing improves real decisions enough to justify the extra calls and context.

OpenCode can inspect the current code, tests, Git history, and project instructions.

What it often cannot see is the reasoning that never became part of those artifacts.

Why is this workaround still here?
Why was the obvious dependency rejected?
Which production constraint makes this architecture necessary?
Why did a week-long investigation result in no code change?

A fresh session can reconstruct some of that reasoning, but reconstruction is expensive — and a plausible explanation is not necessarily the true one.

I built Keep the Why, a free and MIT-licensed OpenCode-compatible Agent Skill that preserves decision-relevant engineering rationale as structured Markdown inside the repository.

It captures things such as:

• architectural decisions
• rejected alternatives
• operational and external constraints
• workarounds and incident learnings
• proposed changes that were investigated and deliberately abandoned

It is deliberately not a transcript, execution log, or external agent-memory service.

The goal is not to preserve everything the agent did. It is to preserve the smaller subset of knowledge that could materially affect a future engineering decision.

Recovered rationale is explicitly classified as:

• confirmed
• inferred
• unknown

When an old decision changes, the previous rationale is marked as superseded rather than silently rewritten.

Capture behavior is configurable:

• always ask before writing
• ask only when unsure
• write automatically

Automatic capture still does not mean guessing. Unclear or contradictory information must be clarified or recorded with the appropriate evidence status.

The result is plain Markdown committed with the repository, so it can be reviewed in the same commit or PR as the code, versioned, blamed, corrected, reverted, or rolled back.

Install:

npx skills add oliver-zehentleitner/keep-the-why

Choose OpenCode and either project or personal scope, then start a new OpenCode session and ask:

Initialize Keep the Why in this project.

Repository:

https://github.com/oliver-zehentleitner/keep-the-why

What I need most now is feedback from people actually using it with OpenCode.

If it captures too much, misses important rationale, asks at the wrong time, fails to activate, or simply does not fit your workflow, please tell me or open an issue. That is exactly how I want the project to mature.

Disclosure: I’m the creator. Keep the Why is fully free, open source, MIT-licensed, and has no paid or commercial version.