docs: add showy-quota to integrations

[enieuwy]

showy-quota surfaces CodexBar's quota data in terminal/menu-bar surfaces — SketchyBar (macOS), tmux, and a standalone Zellij WASM plugin. It consumes codexbar serve / codexbar usage --format json and owns no auth or provider logic of its own. Mirrors the existing Windows/Linux integration pattern. Happy to reword, fold into an existing section, or drop it.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs real behavior proof before merge. Reviewed June 2, 2026, 1:18 PM ET / 17:18 UTC.

Summary
The PR adds a README entry for the external showy-quota status bar and terminal integration.

Reproducibility: not applicable. this is a documentation-only PR rather than a reproducible runtime bug. I checked the README context, PR diff, CodexBar CLI docs, and the external project description instead.

Review metrics: 1 noteworthy metric.

• Docs surface: 1 file changed, 3 lines added. The diff is limited to a README integration listing, so review is mainly about curation accuracy.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🐚 platinum hermit
Proof: 🌊 off-meta tidepool
Patch quality: 🐚 platinum hermit
Result: ready for maintainer review.

Overall follows the weaker of proof and patch quality, so missing proof can cap an otherwise strong patch.

Rank-up moves:

• none.

Risk before merge

• [P1] The remaining question is maintainer curation: merging would list and implicitly recommend an external project owned outside this repository.

Maintainer options:

1. Decide the mitigation before merge
   Merge the README link if maintainers are comfortable curating this external integration, otherwise ask for wording or placement changes rather than a code repair.
2. Pause or close
   Do not merge this PR until maintainers decide whether the risk is worth taking.

Next step before merge

• [P1] The remaining action is maintainer curation of an external integration link, not an automated code repair.

Security
Cleared: The patch only adds a README link and does not change code execution, dependencies, workflows, credentials, or release automation.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Merge the README link if maintainers are comfortable curating this external integration, otherwise ask for wording or placement changes rather than a code repair.

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

Not applicable; this is a documentation-only PR rather than a reproducible runtime bug. I checked the README context, PR diff, CodexBar CLI docs, and the external project description instead.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes, if maintainers want to curate this external project in the README; the diff is the narrowest maintainable path for a docs-only integration listing.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against 3387cc8b2d47.

Label changes

Label changes:

• add P3: This is a low-risk documentation addition for an optional external integration.
• add rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• add status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Not applicable: The PR changes only README documentation, so external real behavior proof is not required.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is a low-risk documentation addition for an optional external integration.
• rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Not applicable: The PR changes only README documentation, so external real behavior proof is not required.

Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

• Repository policy read: AGENTS.md was read fully; its docs/change validation guidance informed the review scope, and no Swift test run is needed for this README-only inspection. (AGENTS.md:1, 3387cc8b2d47)
• README integration context: Current main already lists related external Windows and Linux integrations near the proposed insertion point, and showy-quota is not already listed. (README.md:217, 3387cc8b2d47)
• PR diff scope: The PR diff modifies only README.md by adding a 3-line status bar and terminal integration section for showy-quota. (README.md:223, eea9e47b7127)
• CLI surface supports the description: docs/cli.md documents both codexbar usage --format json and codexbar serve, including localhost-only usage endpoints for scripts and dashboards. (docs/cli.md:29, 3387cc8b2d47)
• External project check: The public enieuwy/showy-quota repository exists, is MIT licensed, and its README describes SketchyBar, Zellij, and tmux quota strips driven by CodexBar serve/usage output.
• History and ownership pass: Local blame attributes the current README integration area to the release baseline, while public README history shows recent stewardship by steipete and a recent adjacent external-integration addition by jaimegh-es. (README.md:220, 723734ef3422)

Likely related people:

• steipete: Local blame attributes the current README integration area to the release baseline, and public README commit history shows recent README stewardship by this handle. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: medium; commits: 723734ef3422, f82ac6a504d9; files: README.md)
• jaimegh-es: Public README history shows a recent merged change adding the GNOME Shell integration link in the same external-integration area. (role: adjacent contributor; confidence: medium; commits: ff21e8e421e8; files: README.md)

What the crustacean ranks mean

• 🦀 challenger crab: rare, exceptional readiness with strong proof, clean implementation, and convincing validation.
• 🦞 diamond lobster: very strong readiness with only minor maintainer review expected.
• 🐚 platinum hermit: good normal PR, likely mergeable with ordinary maintainer review.
• 🦐 gold shrimp: useful signal, but proof or patch confidence is still limited.
• 🦪 silver shellfish: thin signal; proof, validation, or implementation needs work.
• 🧂 unranked krab: not merge-ready because proof is missing/unusable or there are serious correctness or safety concerns.
• 🌊 off-meta tidepool: rating does not apply to this item.

Shiny media proof means a screenshot, video, or linked artifact directly shows the changed behavior. Runtime, network, CSP, and security claims still need visible diagnostics.

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.