OpenCode Shipped Claude Pro Support Without Asking Anthropic

OpenCode released v2.2.3 on October 30, adding a built-in Claude Agent provider that lets users run the real claude binary through Anthropic's Agent SDK so Pro and Max subscriptions pay for tokens, followed seven hours later by v2.2.4's guided setup wizard. The provider disables Claude Code's Bash and Edit tools in favor of OpenCode's own permission system and maps each chat to a persistent Claude Code session to keep the prompt cache warm. The move follows a January crackdown in which Anthropic banned accounts for harness spoofing and a March demand that OpenCode strip OAuth support, and it appears to conflict with Anthropic's Agent SDK docs stating third-party developers may not offer claude.ai login or rate limits without prior approval.

"Do we need to discuss anything here with anthropic or any kind of approval?" That question is sitting in the design doc for OpenCode's new Claude provider. Someone typed it in October, before the merge. Then the merge happened anyway. On October 30 at 09:55 UTC, OpenCode shipped v2.2.3 with a built-in Claude Agent provider. Install Claude Code, run claude auth login , pick Claude Agent in the connect menu. Your Pro or Max subscription now pays for the tokens. By 16:59 the same day, v2.2.4 had a guided setup wizard for it. Seven hours between "here is a feature" and "here is a button that installs the thing it needs." i have been waiting for someone to do this since January. Not because i thought it was a good idea. Because i wanted to see who would blink first. The old workarounds were gross. Plugins read ~/.claude/.credentials.json , or pulled the token out of the macOS keychain, then replayed it against Anthropic's API while pretending to be Claude Code. That is why January happened. The new provider does none of that. It runs the actual claude binary on your machine, through Anthropic's own Agent SDK. OpenCode never touches the login file. The tools get swapped, which is the clever part. Claude Code's built-in Bash and Edit are switched off. Claude gets OpenCode's tools instead, so every file edit and shell command goes through OpenCode's permission system. And each OpenCode chat maps to one Claude Code session and resumes it on every message. That keeps the prompt cache warm, which is what makes a long session affordable on a flat plan. That is real engineering. i want to be clear about that before i get to the part that bothers me. This was not the first attempt. It was the third. In January, people started seeing an error inside OpenCode. The message said the credentials were only authorized for use with Claude Code. Accounts got caught in a sweep, and some were banned for triggering abuse filters. On January 9, Thariq Shihipar from the Claude Code team explained what happened. The tools had been spoofing the harness. Fake headers, rewritten system prompts, traffic that looked like Claude Code but wasn't. His follow-up was blunt. Third-party harnesses using Claude subscriptions create problems for users and are prohibited by our Terms of Service. By March, Anthropic had demanded that OpenCode strip the OAuth connection out. OpenCode complied. The login went away and Claude in OpenCode meant an API key, at API prices. Then October happened, and the door opened again. Here is the line from Anthropic's own Agent SDK docs, pulled today: Unless previously approved, Anthropic does not allow third party developers to offer claude.ai login or rate limits for their products, including agents built on the Claude Agent SDK. Now read the "in a process you operate" part of that same page. The SDK is for embedding Claude Code's agent in your own application, in a process you run. OpenCode is not my application. It is someone else's application that i installed. So the defenders have a problem. Running the real binary fixes the spoofing complaint. It does not make OpenCode your process. The technical objection is answered. The policy one is still standing there, arms crossed. The r/ClaudeCode thread hit 60 comments in a day. The top sentiment was not excitement. Def getting banned lol. Unless Anthropic says its legit, it aint Another one, more careful and more damning: Claude agent SDK, is not for Anthropic subscriptions. "Embed Claude Code's agent in your own Python or TypeScript application, in a process you operate." It's pretty clear that OpenCode is not your application or process. People are going to get banned The counter-argument on r/opencode was simpler. You can use the Agent SDK in third party apps. That is literally what an SDK is for. Both sides are reading the same page. One is reading the permission. The other is reading the product description. | Claim | Status | |---|---| | Subscription login works in OpenCode | Stated by OpenCode | | It uses the official Agent SDK | Confirmed in the spec | | Anthropic approved it | No public statement found | | Your account is safe | Unknown | That last row is the one that matters. Nobody is claiming it is safe. Not OpenCode, not the plugin authors, not the people defending it. There is also a small graveyard behind this feature. The openchamber/opencode-claude plugin used to do this the hard way. Its README now opens with a bold note saying it is no longer needed, the repo is archived, and the npm package stays up for a transition period. Months of work, converted into a redirect in one release. On a subscription, OpenCode shows the cost as zero dollars . That is not a bug. The spec says a subscription shows $0 because it covers usage. But it tells you what the feature is for. It is a way to make a $200 plan feel unlimited inside a tool Anthropic did not build. i get the appeal. i also think that cost display is the most honest thing in the whole release. It says the quiet part on the screen. Unrelated, but it has been rattling around my head all week. i worked with a guy who refused to pay for software. Not out of principle exactly. He just enjoyed the hunt. He ran his own mail server, his own photo backup, a router he flashed twice a year whether it needed it or not. His calendar was a text file synced by a script he wrote in 2019. It broke every few months. He would fix it in twenty minutes and be smug for a week. The thing i never understood was the math. He was a senior engineer. Twenty minutes of his time cost more than a year of the subscription he was avoiding. But he was not buying software. He was buying the feeling of not being rented to. i think about him every time a tool like this ships. Some people want the plan to cover everything. Some people want to own the thing that runs it. Both groups end up doing unpaid sysadmin work for a company that will change its terms either way. If you are on the $20 Pro plan, do not do this. The limits are small, the risk is your whole account, and the math does not work. You will burn through the cap in a day and still be exposed. If your account is how you make money, use the API key. It costs more per token and it is the only path Anthropic actually names in its docs. Boring answer. Correct answer. And the biggest misconception is that silence means permission. Anthropic has said nothing public about this provider. That is not approval. That is a company deciding whether the support tickets are worth it yet. i could be wrong. Maybe there is an email thread somewhere and everyone is fine. But the design doc's own question mark suggests otherwise. The question mark is still in that doc. As far as i can tell, nobody answered it. OpenCode shipped the feature, wrote the wizard, archived the plugin, and moved on. Anthropic has not posted. The thread is still open, and people are still arguing about the same sentence in the same document. i keep coming back to that line. "Do we need to discuss anything here." Someone knew. They asked. Then they pressed merge. Maybe that is how this always works now. Ship it, wait for the email, hope the email never comes.