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
Scrollback in Zellij Pane Broken for OpenCode, But Works for Claude Code #3020
When running AI code assistants in Zellij (e.g., Codex, OpenCode, Claude Code, etc), I’m unable to scroll up and down in the scrollback buffer when using OpenCode. However, this works correctly for Claude Code’s terminal output. In OpenCode sessions, attempting to scroll does not reveal previous output as expected. Claude Code does allow full Zellij scrollback, so the bug is likely due to differences in how OpenCode manages terminal output or buffer modes.
Steps to reproduce
Launch Zellij. Open a pane and start OpenCode (with output heavy commands).
Attempt to scroll back using Zellij’s scroll/copy mode or the mouse.
Repeat with Claude Code in a separate pane for comparison.
Expected behavior
Output from both apps should be scrollable in Zellij’s scrollback buffer using the standard scroll/copy mode, PgUp/PgDn, and mouse wheel.
Actual behavior
OpenCode output is not accessible in scrollback; scrolling fails or is incomplete.
Claude Code output is fully accessible in the scrollback buffer.
Environment
OS: WSL 2 on Windows 11
Zellij Version: zellij 0.42.2
Additional Context
This issue affects productivity when using Zellij with OpenCode. It occurs even after enabling mouse mode in Zellij and using scroll/copy shortcuts. Suspect this may be related to use of alternate screen buffer or specific terminal escape sequences in OpenCode.
Activity
github-actions commentedon Oct 7, 2025
This issue might be a duplicate of existing issues. Please check:
Feel free to ignore if none of these address your specific case.
rekram1-node commentedon Oct 7, 2025
believe this is because opencode is a tui and claude code isn't
rekram1-node commentedon Oct 7, 2025
You can read more about this in #106 (comment) but I am going to close this because it isn't a bug.