feat: allow grouping models in report output via flag/toggle

[cantalupo555]

Summary

• Remove provider_id from model aggregation key to prevent duplicate entries when the same model appears with different provider names

Problem

When a provider changes its name (e.g., zai-coding-plan → zhipuai-coding-plan for Zhipu AI), the same model (GLM-4.7) appears as two separate entries in the report because the aggregation key included the provider_id.

Before (duplicated):

Model	Provider	Cost
glm-4.7	zai-coding-plan	$8.92
glm-4.7	zhipuai-coding-plan	$0.15

After (consolidated):

Model	Cost
glm-4.7	$9.07

Changes

Changed aggregation key from source:provider_id:model_id to source:model_id in 3 locations:

• get_model_report()
• finalize_report()
• finalize_report_and_graph()

This is safe because:

1. Cost calculation happens per-message BEFORE aggregation
2. Pricing always uses the official provider price (not intermediary)
3. The provider field is retained in ModelUsage struct for reference

[vercel]

@cantalupo555 is attempting to deploy a commit to the Inevitable Team on Vercel.

A member of the Team first needs to authorize it.

[cantalupo555]

Same model (glm-4.7) was being split across providers. Now correctly aggregated:

{
  "source": "opencode",
  "model": "glm-4.7",
  "provider": "zai-coding-plan",
  "input": 11704248,
  "output": 114649,
  "cacheRead": 14947523,
  "cacheWrite": 0,
  "reasoning": 507,
  "messageCount": 445,
  "cost": 8.92011953
}
{
  "source": "opencode",
  "model": "glm-4.7",
  "provider": "zhipuai-coding-plan",
  "input": 214600,
  "output": 2234,
  "cacheRead": 103025,
  "cacheWrite": 0,
  "reasoning": 1233,
  "messageCount": 5,
  "cost": 0.14772015
}

After

{
  "source": "opencode",
  "model": "glm-4.7",
  "provider": "zai-coding-plan",
  "input": 11918848,
  "output": 116883,
  "cacheRead": 15050548,
  "cacheWrite": 0,
  "reasoning": 1740,
  "messageCount": 450,
  "cost": 9.067839679999997
}

[junhoyeo]

Hey @cantalupo555, thanks for taking the time to dig into this and submit a PR! I appreciate the effort.

After thinking about this more carefully, I don't think I can merge this change. Here's why:

The provider dimension is intentionally part of the aggregation key.

The same model accessed through different providers can have significantly different pricing. For example:

• claude-3-5-sonnet via Anthropic direct: $3/$15 per 1M tokens
• claude-3-5-sonnet via AWS Bedrock: different pricing structure
• claude-3-5-sonnet via Azure: yet another pricing

If we remove provider_id from the key, these would be incorrectly merged — and users would lose visibility into where their costs are actually coming from.

Users with multiple providers need per-provider breakdowns.

Some power users intentionally route the same model through different providers (for redundancy, rate limits, or cost optimization). They rely on the per-provider breakdown to understand their usage patterns and costs across each provider. Merging these would remove valuable insights they depend on.

Thanks again for the contribution! 🙏

[cantalupo555]

Hey @junhoyeo, thanks for the review!

After updating OpenCode and logging back into my subscription (Z.AI Coding Plan), I noticed that it had a different name, even though it was the same provider.

I agree we should keep provider_id in the aggregation key — even when prices are the same, the per‑provider breakdown is still useful for visibility/convenience.

So the “different pricing per provider” argument is less applicable here; provider_id is mainly used for breakdown.

The cost of OpenCode is recalculated only by model_id, not by provider_id, using lookup. In other words, today provider_id is mainly used for breakdown/visibility, not for pricing.

Or the example you mentioned above, those providers currently show the same pricing (screenshot below). I’m not claiming pricing is always identical across providers — just that in this OpenCode case, pricing variance isn’t the issue.

The issue that motivated the PR is that OpenCode is now showing different IDs for the same provider (zai-coding-plan and zhipuai-coding-plan), which splits the same model in the report. This change comes from the models.dev catalog, not from the auth code.

So I’d propose reopening the PR as draft with a safer approach: add a “group by model” view option (without changing the internal key). This could be:

• a CLI flag (--group-by-model) for the “models” output
• and a TUI hotkey toggle to quickly switch views.

References (OpenCode repo):

• packages/opencode/src/provider/models.ts (fetches https://models.dev/api.json + cache in ~/.cache/opencode/models.json)
• packages/opencode/test/tool/fixtures/models-api.json (contains both IDs)
  (others in the OpenCode repo if needed)

Catalog IDs:

• zai-coding-plan
  • name: Z.AI Coding Plan
  • api: https://api.z.ai/api/coding/paas/v4
  • doc: https://docs.z.ai/devpack/overview
• zhipuai-coding-plan
  • name: Zhipu AI Coding Plan
  • api: https://open.bigmodel.cn/api/coding/paas/v4
  • doc: https://docs.bigmodel.cn/cn/coding-plan/overview

If this makes sense, could you reopen the PR as draft so I can update it with the grouping option (flag + TUI toggle) purely at the presentation layer?

[junhoyeo]

Makes sense! @cantalupo555
I also think making a group-by-model feature only in the display layer is a great idea, maybe we would like to add a new flag to the configuration file as well?

.