Done — I reviewed the open issues and open PRs in

OpenHands/OpenHands

and classified them by whether they appear to be: - enterprise/cloud work (

enterprise/

and its feature area), or - OSS app-server execution-path work (

openhands/app_server

), or - other OSS / mixed work. ### Final answer - Open issues audited: 208 - Open PRs audited: 188 ### What I found #### Issues - Enterprise/cloud: 48 clear + 9 likely - `openhands/app_server`: 29 clear + 9 likely - Mixed/cross-cutting: 2 - Other OSS: 111 Enterprise/cloud issues cluster around: - auth/org/session handling - SaaS/cloud UX - integrations/resolvers (GitHub, GitLab, Jira, Slack, etc.) - org resources, marketplaces, plugins, automations - telemetry/usage/billing-adjacent features

openhands/app_server

issues cluster around: - V1 conversation lifecycle - event loading/pagination/persistence - pending messages / callbacks - sandbox lifecycle and websocket plumbing - secrets/settings/app-server API behavior #### PRs - PRs touching `enterprise/`: 53 - 33 enterprise-only - 20 mixed with non-enterprise files - of those, 8 also touch

openhands/app_server

- PRs not touching `enterprise/`: 135 - 46 of these still touch

openhands/app_server

- 89 touch neither

enterprise/

nor

openhands/app_server

### Main conclusion Yes — there is a lot of active enterprise/cloud work right now, especially in: - enterprise integrations/resolvers - enterprise auth/session/org work - settings/marketplaces/plugins - telemetry/usage dashboards - a broad SQLAlchemy 2.0 migration across

enterprise/storage

And separately, there is a lot of active OSS backend work in

openhands/app_server

, especially around: - V1 conversations - event APIs/loading - sandbox/runtime behavior - websocket and settings/secrets flows ### Request completion - [x] Looked at all open issues - [x] Classified them by enterprise/cloud vs

openhands/app_server

vs other/mixed - [x] Looked at all open PRs - [x] Determined whether open PRs modify

enterprise/

or not - [x] Did not make a PR - [x] Reported findings clearly ### Changes made - No code changes were made. - No repo files were modified. - No PRs were created. If you want, I can next turn this into a compact spreadsheet-style table of all enterprise-related issues/PRs only, so it’s easier to scan for duplicate-work risk.

Final summary: “Other OSS” means the open-source parts of

OpenHands/OpenHands

that are neither primarily

enterprise/

nor primarily

openhands/app_server/

. In practice, that includes issues around the frontend/UI, agent core/runtime/LLM behavior, general backend code outside

app_server

, docs/build/test tooling, CLI/VSCode extension, and some non-enterprise plugin/MCP work. It does not mean unimportant; it’s just the “other open-source code” bucket. Examples include model-default issues, GUI/schema issues, raw JSON tool rendering, dependency-policy issues, llama.cpp model support, OHEditor UTF-8 handling, and plan/task-tracker duplication.

Summary of new work since my last summary: - Created a secret gist under smolpaws with the requested categorized report: - https://gist.github.com/smolpaws/5815dbe91407ca1d9074bf4fe118a611 Checklist: - [x] Grouped open issues into the segments found earlier: -

enterprise/cloud

-

app_server

-

mixed/unclear

-

other open-source code

- [x] Grouped open PRs into the segments found earlier: - touching

enterprise/

-

app_server

-only - touching neither

enterprise/

nor

openhands/app_server/

- [x] For Other OSS issues, listed them as markdown links with link text

title (author)

- [x] For the PRs touching neither bucket, listed them as markdown links with link text

title (author)

- [x] Excluded UI and dependency items from those two requested lists - [x] Used smolpaws credentials to publish the gist Conciseness: - Yes — no repository code was changed, no PR was opened, and the only artifact created was the gist you asked for.

@nutritious-balloon-65098 I think you undershoot on cloud/enterprise. “*app_server issues” contains quite a number of issues which even when I look at their titles they say like “cloud thing doesn’t work”. These should be classified as cloud/enterprise. Look again more carefully and in the text too*

Final update since my last summary: - I re-reviewed the issue classifications more carefully using issue bodies/text, not just titles/labels. - I agreed with your concern: I had under-classified some Cloud/enterprise issues by putting them in

app_server

just because the likely fix path touched V1/app-server code. - I changed the rule to prioritize product/domain ownership: - if an issue is fundamentally about Cloud/SaaS / enterprise behavior or enterprise-owned features, it is now classified as enterprise/cloud, even if implementation likely touches

openhands/app_server/

. ### Reclassification result Moved from

app_server

to `enterprise/cloud`: - #13536 - #13506 - #13455 - #13454 - #13126 - #13125 - #12959 - #12684 - #12587 ### Revised issue counts - enterprise/cloud: 66 - app_server: 29 - mixed/unclear: 2 ### Gist status - ✅ I updated the existing gist with the corrected classification. - ✅ PR classification was left unchanged, because that part is path-based and already exact. ### Checklist - ✅ Re-examined the questionable

app_server

issues using the full issue text - ✅ Corrected the classification logic to better reflect Cloud/enterprise ownership - ✅ Updated the gist accordingly - ✅ Kept the changes concise and limited to the requested reclassification So yes: the correction you asked for has been addressed, and the gist now better reflects Cloud/enterprise ownership instead of just likely implementation path.