Add support for Notion Credits (Custom Agents / Workers)

[fakepooh]

Summary

CodexBar's Notion AI provider currently tracks only the standard AI allowance windows shown in Notion as Rolling and Monthly.

Please add support for Notion Credits — the separate credit pool used by features such as Custom Agents and Workers.

Current behavior

CodexBar reads Notion's getCreditRateLimitStatus data and correctly shows:

• Rolling (6-hour)
• Monthly (billing period)

However, Notion Credits are not fetched or displayed.

The current provider documentation explicitly notes that Custom Agents and Workers are not covered by the existing allowance and are metered separately via getAIUsageEligibilityV2.

Requested behavior

Add Notion Credits support to the Notion provider, ideally including:

1. Fetching the current Notion Credits allowance / usage from the relevant Notion internal endpoint (currently getAIUsageEligibilityV2).
2. Showing Notion Credits in the Notion dropdown card alongside Rolling and Monthly.
3. Exposing the remaining/used credits to Menu Bar Layout, preferably through a dedicated Credits token rather than overloading a percentage quota token.
4. Preserving the existing workspace selection behavior so credits are read for the same selected Business/Enterprise workspace.
5. Graceful handling when the endpoint is unavailable, changes shape, or the workspace has no credit-based features enabled.

Why this is useful

Rolling/Monthly AI allowance and Notion Credits are separate limits. A workspace can still have healthy Rolling/Monthly headroom while consuming its Notion Credits through Custom Agents or Workers, so only showing the existing allowance gives an incomplete picture of actual Notion AI capacity.

Technical context

Current Notion provider flow:

• /api/v3/getSpaces → account/workspace resolution
• /api/v3/getCreditRateLimitStatus → Rolling + Monthly AI allowance

Notion Credits appear to be exposed separately via:

/api/v3/getAIUsageEligibilityV2

The implementation should avoid treating these credits as the same thing as the standard basic_ai_credits Rolling/Monthly allowance.

Since these are internal Notion endpoints, the existing unsupported-integration caveat already applies.

UI suggestion

Dropdown example:

Rolling        42%
Monthly        18%
Notion Credits 7,850 remaining

Menu Bar Layout could expose a provider-aware token such as:

Credits

or

Notion Credits

rather than mapping this to Session % / Weekly %.

Environment

• macOS
• CodexBar with Notion AI provider enabled
• Notion Business/Enterprise workspace
• Custom Agents / Workers using Notion Credits

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: keeping this open for maintainer follow-up; there is still a little grit to resolve. Reviewed August 12, 2026, 6:59 AM ET / 10:59 UTC.

Summary
Keep open for product direction: current main explicitly excludes Custom Agents and Workers credits, and adding the separate unsupported endpoint plus layout surface is a new provider capability requiring sign-off.

Reproducibility: not applicable. this is a request for new coverage, and current documentation explicitly confirms that this credit pool is not read.

Ways to help us reproduce this

• Add a screenshot or short recording showing the behavior.
• Add expected vs actual behavior.
• Include redacted logs or terminal output.

Maintainer decision needed

Question	Recommendation
Should CodexBar expand the Notion provider to query the separate unsupported credits endpoint and expose that balance in shared menu layouts?	Sponsor the bounded provider addition: Use the existing optional credits result seam, require a redacted endpoint fixture, and fail softly when credits are unavailable.

Why: This is a new capability using an undocumented cookie-authenticated endpoint and adds presentation/configuration surface beyond the documented allowance scope.

Next step
A maintainer must approve the private-endpoint scope and the shared credits presentation contract before a repair lane can safely implement it.

Review details

Best possible solution:

After sponsorship, add a fail-soft selected-workspace credit fetch that returns a separate balance, preserves the existing allowance windows, and is covered by redacted parser, provider-result, and menu-layout tests.

Do we have a high-confidence way to reproduce the issue?

Not applicable: this is a request for new coverage, and current documentation explicitly confirms that this credit pool is not read.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Unclear: the shared fetch result has a credit-balance seam, but the private response contract and permanent layout-token design need maintainer approval before implementation.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Remaining risk / open question:

• The internal endpoint’s workspace-scoped response shape and balance semantics are not represented by a redacted fixture, so an implementation could otherwise display the wrong value or fail noisily when Notion changes it.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against a90dfed5c264.

Label changes

Label changes:

• add P3: This is an optional provider enhancement, not a regression in the documented Rolling and Monthly allowance flow.
• add issue-rating: 🌊 off-meta tidepool: Current issue advisory state selects this label.
• add clawsweeper:no-new-fix-pr: Current issue advisory state selects this label.
• add clawsweeper:needs-maintainer-review: Current issue advisory state selects this label.
• add clawsweeper:needs-product-decision: Current issue advisory state selects this label.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is an optional provider enhancement, not a regression in the documented Rolling and Monthly allowance flow.

Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

• Documented current scope: The Notion provider documentation says Custom Agents and Workers use Notion credits through getAIUsageEligibilityV2 and that the provider does not read them. (docs/notion.md:108, a90dfed5c264)
• Current fetch boundary: The fetcher resolves one workspace, requests only getCreditRateLimitStatus, and returns its allowance snapshot. (Sources/CodexBarCore/Providers/Notion/NotionUsageFetcher.swift:358, a90dfed5c264)
• Credits deliberately disabled: Notion metadata labels its two existing windows Rolling and Monthly and sets supportsCredits to false. (Sources/CodexBarCore/Providers/Notion/NotionProviderDescriptor.swift:37, a90dfed5c264)
• Existing extension seam: The shared provider fetch result already has an optional CreditsSnapshot field, so a sponsored implementation can avoid overloading percentage windows. (Sources/CodexBarCore/Providers/ProviderFetchPlan.swift:109, a90dfed5c264)
• History and release provenance: Blame attributes the current Notion descriptor scope to the v0.49.2 release commit; the release tag contains that commit. (Sources/CodexBarCore/Providers/Notion/NotionProviderDescriptor.swift:44, 330ae4384b18)

Likely related people:

• Peter Steinberger: Current Notion fetch, descriptor, snapshot, and documentation lines blame to the v0.49.2 release commit. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: high; commits: 330ae4384b18; files: Sources/CodexBarCore/Providers/Notion/NotionUsageFetcher.swift, Sources/CodexBarCore/Providers/Notion/NotionProviderDescriptor.swift, Sources/CodexBarCore/Providers/Notion/NotionUsageSnapshot.swift)

How this review workflow works

• ClawSweeper keeps one durable marker-backed review comment per issue or PR.
• Re-runs edit this comment so the latest verdict, findings, and automation markers stay together instead of adding duplicate bot comments.
• A fresh review can be triggered by eligible @clawsweeper re-review comments, exact-item GitHub events, scheduled/background review runs, or manual workflow dispatch.
• PR/issue authors and users with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review or @clawsweeper re-run on an open PR or issue to request a fresh review only.
• Maintainers can also comment @clawsweeper review to request a fresh review only.
• Fresh-review commands do not start repair, autofix, rebase, CI repair, or automerge.
• Maintainer-only repair and merge flows require explicit commands such as @clawsweeper autofix, @clawsweeper automerge, @clawsweeper fix ci, or @clawsweeper address review.
• Maintainers can comment @clawsweeper explain to ask for more context, or @clawsweeper stop to stop active automation.