Skip to content

9.0.0: remove the deprecated /flow-reviewer command - #85

Merged
vriesd merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
remove-flow-reviewer-9.0.0
Sep 15, 2026
Merged

vriesd merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
remove-flow-reviewer-9.0.0

Conversation

@vriesd

@vriesd vriesd commented Sep 15, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Draft — do not merge yet. This is Phase 2 of the deprecation, prepared while 8.6.0 was publishing. It must not land until 9.0.0 is authorized and its qualification path is chosen. Merging it into a minor release would put a public-surface removal where the cadence rule forbids one.

What this does

  • Deletes the flow.reviewer.select command block from src/tui.ts.
  • Renames the TUI module id opencode-plugin-flow.reviewer-pickeropencode-plugin-flow.model-picker. This is public module identity, which is why it waited for the major.
  • Deletes the alias test and replaces it with one asserting a single slash command remains, so nothing quietly reintroduces a second entry point into the same picker.
  • Renames the stale 8.4.0 framing that only ever described the reviewer: tests/reviewer-picker.test.tstests/model-picker.test.ts, and FROZEN_PICKER_SOURCE_BYTESFROZEN_MODEL_PICKER_SOURCE_BYTES.
  • Drops the deprecation clause from docs/maintainer-contract.md.

Deliberately untouched: reviewer-picker-v1 in evals/qualification/features/8.4.0.json, REVIEWER_PICKER_FILES in scripts/feature-release.ts, and the matching test fixtures. Those are historical records of what 8.4.0 froze and must not be rewritten.

Why it is unblocked

8.6.0 shipped the deprecation notice (published 2026-09-15, npm latest), satisfying docs/release-qualification.md:82 — announced in one release, removed no earlier than the next major.

Worth weighing before merging: 8.6.0 published minutes before this branch was cut. The letter of the rule is met, but nobody has had a realistic window to encounter the notice. If a lifecycle gap matters to you, hold this until 8.6.0 has been out for a while.

No version bump here

Deliberate. Per the 8.6.0 pattern the bump belongs in the reviewed commit of the release PR, so that a release record can name it without a later edit moving a frozen blob. Cutting 9.0.0 also needs a qualification decision — full paid campaign, or a fourth consecutive offline entry, which would be a considerably weaker claim on an exception written for individually reviewed features.

Verification

bun run check — 1214 pass, 1 skip, 0 fail. Removing the command returns budget: maintained prose 98,860 of 99,000 (was 98,924); src TypeScript 284,920 of 285,696 (was 285,152).

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

BREAKING CHANGE: `/flow-reviewer` is gone. `/flow-models` reaches the same
review picker and also selects the optional planning specialist. The TUI module
id changes from `opencode-plugin-flow.reviewer-picker` to
`opencode-plugin-flow.model-picker`.

8.6.0 announced the deprecation, satisfying the cadence rule that a surface is
announced in one release before a major removes it. The picker tests already
reached review through the role menu, so this deletes the one alias test and
replaces it with an assertion that a single slash command remains.

Also renames the stale 8.4.0 framing that only ever described the reviewer:
tests/reviewer-picker.test.ts and FROZEN_PICKER_SOURCE_BYTES.

Not for merge until 9.0.0 is authorized and its qualification path is chosen.
Merging earlier would put a public-surface removal in a minor release.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
@vriesd
vriesd marked this pull request as ready for review September 15, 2026 03:59
@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.

@vriesd
vriesd merged commit 0ce7b39 into main Sep 15, 2026
7 checks passed
@vriesd
vriesd deleted the remove-flow-reviewer-9.0.0 branch September 15, 2026 03:59
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.

2 participants