anomalyco/opencode
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode.git synced 2026-07-23 02:36:57 -04:00
Code Issues 5.9k Packages Projects Releases 19 Wiki Activity

[PR #9698] feat: select/replace tools Fixes #9701 #13198

New Issue
Open
opened 2026-02-16 18:18:04 -05:00 by yindo · 0 comments
yindo commented 2026-02-16 18:18:04 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

Original Pull Request: https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/pull/9698

State: open
Merged: No

What does this PR do?

Opened this PR as a draft because it's just something I think was worth prototyping.

The search/replace mechanism that has become the defacto workflow for edits has a couple problems:

  • The LLM has to perfectly recall and generate the code it wants to replace in full. Granted, the edit tool has generous matching here.
  • LLM token generation/output is an order of more expensive and several order of magnitudes slower than prefill/input of the same size.
  • Failures are expensive and slow. If the match fails, the entire tool call needs to be reexecuted.

This pull request adds two new tools: select-text and replace-selection.

The flow is:

  • LLM selects text using start and end search strings, this allows the model to not generate/recall large blocks of code that need replacing.
  • If the search fails, the failure is fast and cheap, and the model reattempts the search.
  • On success, the select tool returns the selected code for the model to review and continue. Prefill of large code blocks, even thousands of lines, is sub second, whereas generation may take minutes.
  • The LLM then uses the replace tool and generates/outputs tokens for only the new code.

This is roughly 2x fast for half the price with Claude, for example.

Model Base Input Tokens 5m Cache Writes 1h Cache Writes Cache Hits & Refreshes Output Tokens
Claude Opus 4.5 $5 / MTok $6.25 / MTok $10 / MTok $0.50 / MTok $25 / MTok

The downside is that model training data now extensively uses the existing edit tool style calls, so that flow is baked into their weights. However, as mentioned, failures are fast and inexpensive comparatively with this new tool call flow.

The change needed a way for tools to access the conversation history, as the new tools are stateful.

How did you verify your code works?

Tests and usage.

**Original Pull Request:** https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/pull/9698 **State:** open **Merged:** No --- ### What does this PR do? Opened this PR as a draft because it's just something I think was worth prototyping. The search/replace mechanism that has become the defacto workflow for edits has a couple problems: * The LLM has to perfectly recall and generate the code it wants to replace in full. Granted, the edit tool has generous matching here. * LLM token generation/output is an order of more expensive and several order of magnitudes slower than prefill/input of the same size. * Failures are expensive and slow. If the match fails, the entire tool call needs to be reexecuted. This pull request adds two new tools: select-text and replace-selection. The flow is: * LLM selects text using start and end search strings, this allows the model to not generate/recall large blocks of code that need replacing. * If the search fails, the failure is fast and cheap, and the model reattempts the search. * On success, the select tool returns the selected code for the model to review and continue. Prefill of large code blocks, even thousands of lines, is sub second, whereas generation may take minutes. * The LLM then uses the replace tool and generates/outputs tokens for only the new code. This is roughly 2x fast for half the price with Claude, for example. | Model | Base Input Tokens | 5m Cache Writes | 1h Cache Writes | Cache Hits & Refreshes | Output Tokens | |-------|------------------|-----------------|-----------------|------------------------|---------------| | Claude Opus 4.5 | $5 / MTok | $6.25 / MTok | $10 / MTok | $0.50 / MTok | $25 / MTok | The downside is that model training data now extensively uses the existing edit tool style calls, so that flow is baked into their weights. However, as mentioned, failures are fast and inexpensive comparatively with this new tool call flow. The change needed a way for tools to access the conversation history, as the new tools are stateful. ### How did you verify your code works? Tests and usage.
yindo added the pull-request label 2026-02-16 18:18:04 -05:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
acp
bad
bug
discussion
docs
documentation
enhancement
extension
good first issue
growth
help-wanted
mcp
model-problem
needs:compliance
nix
opentui
perf
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 tui
web
windows
zen
No Label pull-request
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
yindo
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: anomalyco/opencode#13198
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?