Add native /graphify slash command for OpenCode

[ayushcodes10]

OpenCode skills are loaded on-demand by the agent via description matching; they are not slash commands. Only a markdown file under .opencode/commands/ becomes a /-menu entry, so installing just the skill and reminder plugin left /graphify absent from the TUI command menu even though the skill loaded correctly and the docs told users to type it.

Ship a command-opencode.md template (mirroring the existing Kilo command file) that loads the skill and forwards $ARGUMENTS, and wire it into opencode install/uninstall alongside the existing plugin.

Also drops the .opencode/opencode.json "plugin" array registration: OpenCode already auto-loads every file under .opencode/plugins/, so the registration was redundant, and for a global install it wrote a project-relative path into a project-relative config file that a global setup never reads, leaving a dead entry behind.

Fixes #2709.

[graphify-labs]

Graphify reviewed this change.

Looks safe to merge — no coupling regressions and no blocking issues, checked against the code graph (not a self-assessment).

Formal verification. 2 change(s) tested, no difference found (not proven).

---

Graphify review — findings

This PR changes the OpenCode integration in graphify/install.py. It removes the logic that registered/deregistered the plugin in .opencode/opencode.json (so install/uninstall no longer touch that config file) and adds installation of a new native /graphify slash command via a new command-opencode.md file copied into .opencode/commands/. Supporting changes include the new command markdown file, a pyproject.toml package-data entry for it, an import rename in __main__.py, and updated/rewritten tests in test_install.py reflecting the config and command behavior.

No blocking issues surfaced. 3 lower-confidence candidates did not survive cross-model review.

Analysis details — impact, health, verification

Impact & health

Graphify review

Impact — 479 functions depend on the 293 functions this change touches.

Health — this change adds coupling hotspots:

• worse: install() — 5 callers, 12 callees
• worse: _agents_install() — 6 callers, 7 callees
• worse: _agents_uninstall() — 7 callers, 5 callees
• worse: uninstall_all() — 2 callers, 14 callees

Verification — 479 functions in the blast radius were not formally verified this run (proofs are advisory here).

Gate & verification

graphify gate

PASS — objectively clean (no health regressions, tests not run — proofs not run this pass (advisory)). Grounded, not self-assessed.

Advisory (not blocking):

• verification_scope: 479 function(s) in the blast radius were not formally verified this run

Formal verification

Could not verify: Could not verify \_agents\_install.

The verifier did not have enough to check \_agents\_install, so it is saying so rather than guessing. No false assurance is the whole point.

Guarantee: No guarantee either way, this is an honest abstention, not a pass.

Note: Reason: not verifiable: all 200 sampled inputs raised on both versions — the function never executed, so 'no divergence' would be vacuous (mostly TypeError — names the real obstacle, not a sampling gap)

No difference found (not proven): No behavior difference found in \_agents\_uninstall (not a proof).

The verifier ran both versions of \_agents\_uninstall on many inputs and saw identical behavior every time. Strong evidence the change is safe, but evidence, not a proof.

Guarantee: Empirical: differential testing (both versions run on many generated inputs). A divergence on an untested input remains possible, so this is 'no counterexample found', not 'proven equivalent'.

Note: An input the sampler did not try could still differ.

Could not verify: Could not verify install.

The verifier did not have enough to check install, so it is saying so rather than guessing. No false assurance is the whole point.

Guarantee: No guarantee either way, this is an honest abstention, not a pass.

Note: Reason: not verifiable: all 23 sampled inputs raised on both versions — the function never executed, so 'no divergence' would be vacuous (mostly SystemExit — names the real obstacle, not a sampling gap)

Could not verify: Could not verify \_install\_opencode\_plugin.

The verifier did not have enough to check \_install\_opencode\_plugin, so it is saying so rather than guessing. No false assurance is the whole point.

Guarantee: No guarantee either way, this is an honest abstention, not a pass.

Note: Reason: parameter `project_dir` is annotated `Path` — outside the synthesizable primitive/collection set

No difference found (not proven): No behavior difference found in uninstall\_all (not a proof).

The verifier ran both versions of uninstall\_all on many inputs and saw identical behavior every time. Strong evidence the change is safe, but evidence, not a proof.

Guarantee: Empirical: differential testing (both versions run on many generated inputs). A divergence on an untested input remains possible, so this is 'no counterexample found', not 'proven equivalent'.

Note: An input the sampler did not try could still differ.

Could not verify: Could not verify \_uninstall\_opencode\_plugin.

The verifier did not have enough to check \_uninstall\_opencode\_plugin, so it is saying so rather than guessing. No false assurance is the whole point.

Guarantee: No guarantee either way, this is an honest abstention, not a pass.

Note: Reason: parameter `project_dir` is annotated `Path` — outside the synthesizable primitive/collection set

· 4 more finding(s) on lines outside this diff (see the check run).

[ayushcodes10]

@safishamsi this PR's CI run is waiting on approval (first-time contributor gate) — could you approve the workflow run when you get a chance? Happy to address any review feedback in the meantime.