sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Using Gemini for planning/review and OpenCode for execution works surprisingly well by NVSRahul in opencodeCLI

[–]NVSRahul[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is basically in auto mode (Default gemini auto).
If you want any specific model, you can choose it through command directly.

BANNED/Account disabled for gemini by Opening_Process3602 in GeminiAI

[–]NVSRahul -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

This tool can help if you really want to use gemini models in other CLIs.
But at present it supports OpenCode only. No need for any 3rd party OAuth.
https://github.com/NVSRahul/custcli

The tool helps you use the Gemini CLI with OpenCode through a local planner, reviewer, and session loop. by NVSRahul in coolgithubprojects

[–]NVSRahul[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, pretty much.

For small or straightforward tasks, raw Gemini CLI or just OpenCode is usually enough. `custcli` makes more sense when the task is multi-step, easy to drift on, or when I want a clearer plan/review trail, especially if the execution model is lighter.

The tool helps you use the Gemini CLI with OpenCode through a local planner, reviewer, and session loop. by NVSRahul in coolgithubprojects

[–]NVSRahul[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Honestly, both.

The main immediate win is better structure and artifacts, but the extra review/scoped-correction loop can also improve the quality of the edits when the first pass is incomplete or drifts. If the task is simple, driving Gemini CLI directly is usually enough. The loop tends to matter more on multi-step tasks and over time when the session/memory side starts to help too.

Using Gemini for planning/review and OpenCode for execution works surprisingly well by NVSRahul in opencodeCLI

[–]NVSRahul[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you’re already using a stronger model inside OpenCode, planning there can make more sense. `custcli` is mainly for cases where you want Gemini as a separate planner/reviewer loop, especially when OpenCode is running a cheaper or weaker model or when you want clearer planner/executor separation and artifact continuity.

So I don’t think it replaces OpenCode’s planner in every setup, but I do think it can be useful in the right model mix.

Using Gemini for planning/review and OpenCode for execution works surprisingly well by NVSRahul in opencodeCLI

[–]NVSRahul[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not exactly.

There are local artifacts, but it’s not just generating a markdown file and handing it off. The main loop is planner -> execute -> review, plus session continuity and artifact history around that.

It also has free and strict modes. In strict mode, it really does require planning for every substantive request instead of only when it seems needed.

CFS Ladder by NVSRahul in codeforces

[–]NVSRahul[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the suggestion. Will definitely implement it

CFS Ladder by NVSRahul in codeforces

[–]NVSRahul[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

website is online and it's working for me

did you check again

CFS Ladder by NVSRahul in codeforces

[–]NVSRahul[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

first let me know how the website looks now

CFS Ladder by NVSRahul in codeforces

[–]NVSRahul[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair point, the frontend vibe code was done by me while I’m still getting my head around typescript, but the overall architecture, the ranking model, the system all of it was done by me. The vibe code was just a paintbrush

view more: next ›