anomalyco/opencode
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode.git synced 2026-07-23 10:45:33 -04:00
Code Issues 5.9k Packages Projects Releases 19 Wiki Activity

Missing /details command in opencode v1 #2511

New Issue
Open
opened 2026-02-16 17:36:03 -05:00 by yindo · 8 comments
yindo commented 2026-02-16 17:36:03 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

Originally created by @oliver-14203 on GitHub (Nov 2, 2025).

Originally assigned to: @thdxr on GitHub.

Description

Since upgrading to the OpenTUI version of opencode (v1), the /details command is missing. The command allowed users to hide the details of tool calls, allowing for a more minimal UI.

This is particularly useful in projects in which processes are more automated, and significant supervision of the tool calls isn't required, cleaning up the UI.

OpenCode version

1.0.15

Steps to reproduce

  1. Type /details
  2. It isn't there

Screenshot and/or share link

No response

Operating System

No response

Terminal

No response

Originally created by @oliver-14203 on GitHub (Nov 2, 2025). Originally assigned to: @thdxr on GitHub. ### Description Since upgrading to the OpenTUI version of opencode (v1), the /details command is missing. The command allowed users to hide the details of tool calls, allowing for a more minimal UI. This is particularly useful in projects in which processes are more automated, and significant supervision of the tool calls isn't required, cleaning up the UI. ### OpenCode version 1.0.15 ### Steps to reproduce 1. Type /details 2. It isn't there ### Screenshot and/or share link _No response_ ### Operating System _No response_ ### Terminal _No response_
yindo added the opentuibug labels 2026-02-16 17:36:03 -05:00
yindo commented 2026-02-16 17:36:03 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 2, 2025):

This issue might be a duplicate of existing issues. Please check:

  • #3065: Bug: Tool Calls are not shown directly if tool details are toggled off - Similar functionality around controlling tool call visibility
  • #3641: OpenTUI: /thinking command is missing - Another missing slash command in OpenTUI v1
  • #3748: Export functionality seems to be missing in opentui version - Missing functionality in OpenTUI version
  • #3642: 1.0.2 Missing ability to open editor for history - Missing functionality after v1 upgrade

Feel free to ignore if none of these address your specific case.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 2, 2025): This issue might be a duplicate of existing issues. Please check: - #3065: Bug: Tool Calls are not shown directly if tool details are toggled off - Similar functionality around controlling tool call visibility - #3641: OpenTUI: `/thinking` command is missing - Another missing slash command in OpenTUI v1 - #3748: Export functionality seems to be missing in opentui version - Missing functionality in OpenTUI version - #3642: 1.0.2 Missing ability to open editor for history - Missing functionality after v1 upgrade Feel free to ignore if none of these address your specific case.
yindo commented 2026-02-16 17:36:03 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

@thdxr commented on GitHub (Nov 4, 2025):

so i didn't add this yet because the default view is already very compressed - you find that it's still too noisy? we only show edit and bash tool calls

@thdxr commented on GitHub (Nov 4, 2025): so i didn't add this yet because the default view is already very compressed - you find that it's still too noisy? we only show edit and bash tool calls
yindo commented 2026-02-16 17:36:03 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

@rekram1-node commented on GitHub (Nov 4, 2025):

Another user wants /details or some equivalent to be able to see more detail from tool calls

@rekram1-node commented on GitHub (Nov 4, 2025): Another user wants /details or some equivalent to be able to see more detail from tool calls
yindo commented 2026-02-16 17:36:03 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

@scottrbaxter commented on GitHub (Nov 4, 2025):

Adding to this, i had a bindkey set to details which was really useful to quickly toggle on/off and re-reference tool calls. definitely would like to see this re-implemented. currently holding out with 0.15.31 until more features like this are added back in.

thanks for rapid turnaround and all of the community responses!

@scottrbaxter commented on GitHub (Nov 4, 2025): Adding to this, i had a bindkey set to details which was really useful to quickly toggle on/off and re-reference tool calls. definitely would like to see this re-implemented. currently holding out with `0.15.31` until more features like this are added back in. thanks for rapid turnaround and all of the community responses!
yindo commented 2026-02-16 17:36:03 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

@luifr10 commented on GitHub (Nov 9, 2025):

Hello,
I agree that this feature seems essential to me.
Once a call to a tool has been made, it is useful to be able to see the raw output to that call.

@luifr10 commented on GitHub (Nov 9, 2025): Hello, I agree that this feature seems essential to me. Once a call to a tool has been made, it is useful to be able to see the raw output to that call.
yindo commented 2026-02-16 17:36:03 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

@przemyslawsokol commented on GitHub (Nov 11, 2025):

I'm not sure if that falls under what /details command could be used for, but it would be super useful to be able to control verbosity level in some way. To give you an example, here's one prompt against some send.rs Rust file (a simple question, with a typo, rather than a request to apply any change):

Can we change "String value from thread" to "Moved value from thead" in @examples/send.rs. Would it be correct?
txt examples/send.rs

And here's the model response (Grok Code Fast 1 in this case):

The user wants to change "String value from thread" to "Moved value from thead" in examples/send.rs. They ask if it would be correct.

Reviewing code change

  • The user wants to modify a string in examples/send.rs, changing "String value from thread" to "Moved value from thead."
  • Checking line 15, the original string is part of a println! macro, likely related to thread handling.

Assessing correctness

  • The change replaces "String" with "Moved" and has a typo ("thead" instead of "thread").
  • Need to verify if "Moved value from thread" accurately reflects the code's behavior, especially thread ownership semantics.

Reviewing code change

  • The string "String value from thread" is printed inside a thread, using a closure with move ||, indicating the string s is moved into the thread.

Yes, it's correct (fixing "thead" to "thread"). The value is moved to the thread and printed from it.

Build grok-code

As you can see, that's quite a lot of text for a simple yes/no question. Meanwhile, if it was possible to set a minimal verbosity in some way (in OpenCode session or settings), we could expect the output to be just:

Yes, it's correct (fixing "thead" to "thread"). The value is moved to the thread and printed from it.

Being able to make OpenCode output concise with some simple setting/option could be very useful in some usage scenarios

@przemyslawsokol commented on GitHub (Nov 11, 2025): I'm not sure if that falls under what `/details` command could be used for, but it would be super useful to be able to control verbosity level in some way. To give you an example, here's one prompt against some `send.rs` Rust file (a simple question, with a typo, rather than a request to apply any change): > Can we change "String value from thread" to "Moved value from thead" in @examples/send.rs. Would it be correct? > txt examples/send.rs And here's the model response (Grok Code Fast 1 in this case): > The user wants to change "String value from thread" to "Moved value from thead" in examples/send.rs. They ask if it would be correct. > > Reviewing code change > - The user wants to modify a string in examples/send.rs, changing "String value from thread" to "Moved value from thead." > - Checking line 15, the original string is part of a println! macro, likely related to thread handling. > > Assessing correctness > - The change replaces "String" with "Moved" and has a typo ("thead" instead of "thread"). > - Need to verify if "Moved value from thread" accurately reflects the code's behavior, especially thread ownership semantics. > > Reviewing code change > - The string "String value from thread" is printed inside a thread, using a closure with `move ||`, indicating the string `s` is moved into the thread. > > Yes, it's correct (fixing "thead" to "thread"). The value is moved to the thread and printed from it. > > Build grok-code As you can see, that's quite a lot of text for a simple yes/no question. Meanwhile, if it was possible to set a minimal verbosity in some way (in OpenCode session or settings), we could expect the output to be just: > Yes, it's correct (fixing "thead" to "thread"). The value is moved to the thread and printed from it. Being able to make OpenCode output concise with some simple setting/option could be very useful in some usage scenarios
yindo commented 2026-02-16 17:36:03 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

@rserbitar commented on GitHub (Jan 5, 2026):

Another call of the ability to see the raw tool output.

@rserbitar commented on GitHub (Jan 5, 2026): Another call of the ability to see the raw tool output.
yindo commented 2026-02-16 17:36:03 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

@dlecan commented on GitHub (Jan 22, 2026):

I need this command too, as documented https://opencode.ai/docs/tui/#details

@dlecan commented on GitHub (Jan 22, 2026): I need this command too, as documented https://opencode.ai/docs/tui/#details
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 bug opentui
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#2511
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?