refactor(server): effectify file json route handlers

[Astro-Han]

Summary

Migrate the ordinary file JSON route handlers to the existing AppRuntime.runPromise(Effect.gen(...)) route runtime pattern.

Why

This continues the #936 ordinary JSON route migration while preserving the current file search, list, read, and status contracts. Streaming, auth, workspace sync, v2, and SDK/OpenAPI source generation are not touched.

Related Issue

Refs #936

Human Review Status

Pending

Review Focus

Please check that the route handlers only delegate through the Effect services and keep existing JSON responses unchanged for file search/list/read/status.

Risk Notes

Skipped conditional checklist items:

• Visible UI/copy check: not applicable; server-only route refactor.
• Platform/packaging check: not applicable; no platform or packaging surface touched.
• Docs/release/dependency/local file check: not applicable; no docs, dependencies, generated content, credentials, or local-only files changed.

How To Verify

Focused route tests: bun test test/server/file-routes.test.ts -> 2 pass, 0 fail
Diff check: git diff --cached --check -> passed before commit

Screenshots or Recordings

Not applicable; no visible UI changes.

Checklist

• Type label — this PR carries exactly one of bug, enhancement, task, documentation. Type labels are author-added; the labeler bot does NOT assign them. Add the label in the GitHub UI, then tick this.
• Routing labels — this PR carries at least one of app, ui, platform, harness, ci. The labeler bot assigns these on PR open based on changed paths. Confirm the bot's choice (or override if wrong), then tick this.
• Priority label — this PR carries exactly one of P0, P1, P2, P3. The priority-triage bot suggests one on PR open. Confirm or override, then tick this.
• Human Review Status above is set to Pending, Approved by @<reviewer>, or Not required: <reason> (default is Pending; "not required" is restricted to bot-authored low-risk PRs).
• I linked the related issue, or stated in Summary why there is no issue.
• I described the review focus and any meaningful risks.
• I replaced the example block in How To Verify with the real verification steps and the key result for each.
• I did not introduce unrelated refactors, dependencies, generated files, or file changes beyond the stated scope.
• (conditional) I manually checked visible UI or copy changes when needed, with screenshots or recordings. Leave unticked only if no visible UI or copy changed.
• (conditional) I considered macOS and Windows impact for platform, packaging, updater, signing, paths, shell, or permissions changes. Leave unticked only if no platform/packaging surface was touched.
• (conditional) I called out docs, release notes, dependencies, permissions, credentials, deletion behavior, generated content, or local file changes when relevant. Leave unticked only if none of those surfaces was touched.
• I reviewed the final diff for unrelated changes and suspicious dependency changes.
• I am targeting dev, and my PR title and commit messages use Conventional Commits in English.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@Astro-Han, we couldn't start this review because you've reached your PR review rate limit.

More reviews will be available in 5 minutes and 56 seconds. Learn how PR review limits work.

Your organization has run out of usage credits. Purchase more in the billing tab.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization.

Our paid plans include higher PR review limits than trial, open-source, and free plans. In all cases, reviews become available again over time. During sustained high-volume PR review activity, CodeRabbit may temporarily slow when the next review becomes available.

Please see our Fair Usage Limits Policy for further information.

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 16b57431-2e81-4fbb-be93-4f79d2320f79

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between c019c11 and 2be7c77.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• packages/opencode/src/server/instance/file.ts
• packages/opencode/test/server/file-routes.test.ts

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch codex/i936-file-route-effect

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[github-actions]

Suggested priority: P2 (includes non-doc, non-test paths outside the low-risk bucket).

P1/P0 are reserved for maintainer confirmation. Please relabel manually if this is a release blocker, security issue, data-loss risk, or updater/runtime failure.

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request refactors the file routes in packages/opencode/src/server/instance/file.ts to utilize the Effect library and AppRuntime.runPromise for service resolution. Additionally, a new test suite file-routes.test.ts is introduced to verify finding, listing, reading, and status retrieval of files. Feedback on the tests suggests configuring user.name and user.email inline during the git commit command to avoid potential failures in CI environments where global Git configurations might be missing.