steveandClaude Opus 5
5994d96921
The 2/4 finding is right: after writeImagePart started passing an explicit filename stem, initImageFilename had no caller in video.go, and its "conditioning frame" doc no longer described its one remaining user (lipsync.go's avatar image). A one-line wrapper that survives only to be misdescribed is not indirection worth keeping. lipsync now calls imageFilename(mime, "frame") directly, and imageFilename's doc lists the real bases — including WHY the video keyframes need distinct ones: a backend that stages uploads by filename would otherwise have the second overwrite the first. Not taken: consolidating the first/last-frame rationale to a single canonical site. The copies address different readers — the wire encoding (provider), the contract's undetectable-support caveat (videogen), and the mode table (README) — and last round's finding was a doc pointing at a note that did not exist. Trading duplication for cross-references is what produced that. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01PLjgrxvHjm1sJgUu9zBPH9