openfusion

OpenFusion

OpenFusion is your panel of expert reviewers, not another worker. You are the executor: you read the code, run the tools, gather the evidence, and do the implementation. When you hit a genuinely hard judgment — one where a single model's answer isn't trustworthy enough and being wrong is expensive — you bring a prepared dossier to OpenFusion and get one consolidated answer back. Then you act on it.

A fusion call fans your prompt out to several models in parallel and a judge reconciles their answers into one (consensus, contradictions resolved, blind spots surfaced). It's ~2–3× slower and costlier than a normal call, and it returns one answer — so it rewards calling it once, well-prepared, over calling it repeatedly.

The mental model

• You do the legwork. Read files, run searches, reproduce the bug, write the code, gather sources. OpenFusion does none of this — it has no tools and sees only what you pass it.
• Bring a dossier, not a question. A good fusion call hands the panel everything a senior reviewer would need: the relevant code, the error/trace, what you've tried, the constraints. "how do I fix my bug?" is a bad call; the bug + the failing code + the trace + your hypotheses is a good one.
• One call per hard problem. Don't loop on fusion to incrementally work something. Prepare, ask once, read the answer, proceed. Don't call it again to validate its own answer.

Pre-flight gate (run this before every fusion call)

Call fusion only when all three are true:

1. I've already gathered the concrete material (code/diff/error/reproduction/sources) — or the task is genuinely pure reasoning that needs no external input.
2. A single capable model probably isn't enough — the decision is subtle, contested, high-stakes, or benefits from independent perspectives.
3. The stakes justify the wait — being wrong is costly (production bug, irreversible action, architecture you'll build on).

If any is false, don't call fusion: do the work yourself, or answer directly.