You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
Spurious "Tool execution aborted" on the slower of two tools dispatched in the same step #37364
When two tool calls are dispatched close together within a single assistant step (a parallel batch), the slower of the two intermittently returns the generic Tool execution aborted, even though nothing was actually cancelled and the tool would otherwise have succeeded. The fast call always completes.
I traced this to SessionProcessor.cleanup() in packages/opencode/src/session/processor.ts. When the per-step stream drains, cleanup waits only 250 ms for still-pending tool calls:
processor.ts:610-626 — anything still tracked after that grace window is hard-stamped error: "Tool execution aborted" (interrupted: true).
So if a co-dispatched tool needs longer than ~250 ms to settle, it gets stamped as aborted.
I confirmed it is not a real cancellation by instrumenting the teardown. In every reproduction the stamped call showed:
aborted=false (no fiber interrupt)
no assistantError (no provider/stream error)
finish=tool-calls
and no late tool-result ever arrived for the stamped call
In other words, the step is treated as finished while a slower tool from the same step is still in flight, and cleanup's 250 ms grace expires before it settles. This matches the "second of two calls" pattern already noted in #18757.
Raising the timeout only lowers the frequency, and awaiting longer would hang teardown on a genuine user-abort — so the real fix likely belongs at the step boundary (don't consider the step finished / don't stamp while tool calls dispatched in that step are still executing) rather than in the grace window. Filing this so the root cause is tracked separately from the generic symptom reports.
Related: #18757 (and its duplicates #17159, #11079, #26063, #31459). Note PR #35268 fixes a different branch (a tool-error arriving before tool-call), not this finish-before-result case.
Reproduces across transports — the common factor is one fast + one slow call issued together:
two native tools (bash echo paired with a webfetch of a large page)
two remote HTTP MCP tools
two local stdio MCP tools
It does not reproduce with genuinely sequential calls (one tool per step).
Plugins
None.
OpenCode version
1.18.2 (reproduced on a local dev build of the current dev branch; also reported on 1.2.x–1.17.x in #18757).
Steps to reproduce
In a single assistant turn, dispatch two tool calls at once: one fast (bash echo hi) and one slow (webfetch of a large page, e.g. a long Wikipedia article).
Check the tool results — the slower call intermittently returns exactly Tool execution aborted.
Repeat a handful of times. It is timing-dependent (~250 ms threshold), so it hits some rounds and not others.
Independent corroboration from a downstream harness (opencode 1.18.30, Linux apptainer/HPC host, 47 opencode processes, load ~14).
A single assistant message dispatched three task (subagent) tool calls in one step. The fastest subagent completed normally; the two slower ones returned bare Tool execution aborted — no task_id, no partial output, no artifacts. Re-running those two sequentially, one per message, both succeeded.
That matches your "one fast + one slow co-dispatched" condition exactly, and adds one data point on the transport axis: the aborted calls here were task tool calls (not bash/webfetch/MCP), so the race appears to be transport-agnostic in the same way your repros are.
Two honest caveats on our side:
Our runtime log has no abort event for this window at all — the ~5452 lines covering it are all INFO, and a census of message= kinds shows no task/abort lifecycle event. So we could not confirm the mechanism from outside; we are citing your 250 ms cleanup finding as the leading explanation, not as our own verification.
If it's useful, our notes (including the negative logging evidence and the repro shape) are in a write-up we can share on request. Thanks for pulling the root cause out of the generic symptom pile — the step-boundary framing (don't stamp while same-step calls are still running) is what we'd expect to fix our case too.
Thanks for the report! OpenCode 2.0 is now out and development is focused on V2, so we're closing issues filed against OpenCode 1. Please upgrade (opencode upgrade --major, details: https://anoma.ly/notes/opencode-2-0), and if this is still relevant on 2.0, reopen this issue or open a new one with your 2.0 version.
Activity
zxkjack123 commentedon Sep 15, 2026
Independent corroboration from a downstream harness (opencode 1.18.30, Linux apptainer/HPC host, 47 opencode processes, load ~14).
A single assistant message dispatched three
task(subagent) tool calls in one step. The fastest subagent completed normally; the two slower ones returned bareTool execution aborted— notask_id, no partial output, no artifacts. Re-running those two sequentially, one per message, both succeeded.That matches your "one fast + one slow co-dispatched" condition exactly, and adds one data point on the transport axis: the aborted calls here were
tasktool calls (notbash/webfetch/MCP), so the race appears to be transport-agnostic in the same way your repros are.Two honest caveats on our side:
message=kinds shows no task/abort lifecycle event. So we could not confirm the mechanism from outside; we are citing your 250 ms cleanup finding as the leading explanation, not as our own verification.task_idto resume from — consistent with [Bug] Esc abort of task tool still loses task_id on v1.18.21 — v1.18.20 fix incomplete #44791. Serial re-run was the only recovery.If it's useful, our notes (including the negative logging evidence and the repro shape) are in a write-up we can share on request. Thanks for pulling the root cause out of the generic symptom pile — the step-boundary framing (don't stamp while same-step calls are still running) is what we'd expect to fix our case too.
flben233 commentedon Oct 1, 2026
I also found the same issue on v2.0.21
Tarquinen commentedon Oct 20, 2026
Thanks for the report! OpenCode 2.0 is now out and development is focused on V2, so we're closing issues filed against OpenCode 1. Please upgrade (
opencode upgrade --major, details: https://anoma.ly/notes/opencode-2-0), and if this is still relevant on 2.0, reopen this issue or open a new one with your 2.0 version.— from 𝕺𝖕𝖊𝖓𝕮𝖔𝖉𝖊