Fix Cursor pace detail when billing cycle quota is depleted

[Yuxin-Qiao]

Summary

• Hide Cursor billing-cycle pace projection (deficit + run-out copy) once remainingPercent reaches zero.
• Align Cursor with UsageStore.weeklyPace and CLI behavior so depleted quotas no longer show a misleading "Runs out now" / "即将耗尽" label.
• Cursor-only diff: no workflow or unrelated automation changes.

Behavior proof (redacted)

Live CLI (CodexBarCLI usage --provider cursor, 2026-07-02)

== Cursor (web) ==
Total: 0% left [------------]
Resets Jul 4 at 11:06 AM
Auto: 0% left [------------]
Resets Jul 4 at 11:06 AM
API: 0% left [------------]
Resets Jul 4 at 11:06 AM
Account: yuxin.qiao@gatech.edu
Plan: Cursor Pro_Student

No pace / deficit / run-out lines are emitted for depleted lanes (matches CLI remainingPercent > 0 guard).

Menu model regression (swift test --filter CursorMenuCardModelTests)

✔ Test "cursor billing cycle metrics hide pace when quota is depleted" passed
✔ Test "cursor billing cycle metrics show deficit and run out details" passed
✔ Test "legacy request plan shows single requests bar with count" passed
✔ Test "team pool shows personal spend and changes height fingerprint" passed
✔ Test run with 4 tests in 1 suite passed

Depleted fixture asserts Total/Auto/API keep 0% left while detailLeftText, detailRightText, and pacePercent are all nil.

Test plan

• swift test --filter CursorMenuCardModelTests (4/4)
• make check
• Live CLI proof above (0% remaining, no pace lines)
• Menu model regression proof above
• Optional reviewer UI spot-check in app menu (bars remain; pace detail hidden at 0%)

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs maintainer review before merge. Reviewed July 2, 2026, 12:42 AM ET / 04:42 UTC.

Summary
Adds a Cursor-only guard that suppresses billing-cycle pace detail when remainingPercent is zero and adds a menu-card regression test for depleted Total/Auto/API lanes.

Reproducibility: yes. from source inspection: current main computes Cursor billing-cycle pace for depleted windows, while the CLI and store paths already suppress pace when remaining percent is zero. I did not run live provider checks because repository policy warns against unrequested real account/keychain validation.

Review metrics: 1 noteworthy metric.

• Diff surface: 2 files changed, +49/-1. The force-pushed head is limited to Cursor display logic and one regression test, so the earlier unrelated automation concern no longer applies.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🦞 diamond lobster
Proof: 🦞 diamond lobster
Patch quality: 🦞 diamond lobster
Result: ready for maintainer review.

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

Next step before merge

• No ClawSweeper repair job is needed; this implementation PR is awaiting ordinary maintainer merge review and required checks.

Security
Cleared: The diff only changes Swift menu-model logic and a focused test, with no CI, dependency, credential, or supply-chain surface.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Land the focused guard and regression test once normal required checks and maintainer merge review complete.

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

Yes from source inspection: current main computes Cursor billing-cycle pace for depleted windows, while the CLI and store paths already suppress pace when remaining percent is zero. I did not run live provider checks because repository policy warns against unrequested real account/keychain validation.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes, this is the narrow maintainable fix because it mirrors existing depleted-window suppression while preserving non-depleted Cursor pace details and adding a focused regression test.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 6ab1cbb7daee.

Label changes

Label changes:

• add rating: 🦞 diamond lobster: Overall readiness is 🦞 diamond lobster; proof is 🦞 diamond lobster and patch quality is 🦞 diamond lobster.
• remove rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Current PR rating is rating: 🦞 diamond lobster, so this older rating label is no longer current.

Label justifications:

• P2: This fixes a contained user-visible Cursor display bug with limited blast radius.
• rating: 🦞 diamond lobster: Overall readiness is 🦞 diamond lobster; proof is 🦞 diamond lobster and patch quality is 🦞 diamond lobster.
• status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Sufficient (live_output): The PR body provides copied live Cursor CLI output from a depleted account plus menu-model regression output showing the after-fix behavior.
• proof: sufficient: Contributor real behavior proof is sufficient. The PR body provides copied live Cursor CLI output from a depleted account plus menu-model regression output showing the after-fix behavior.

Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

• Repository policy read: AGENTS.md was read fully; its guidance to prefer focused model/CLI tests and avoid unrequested live provider/keychain validation shaped this review. (AGENTS.md:1, 6ab1cbb7daee)
• No matching maintainer notes: The checkout has no .agents/maintainer-notes directory to apply for the touched Cursor model/test files. (6ab1cbb7daee)
• Current main source path: On current main, cursorBillingCyclePaceDetail only checks Cursor provider and window duration before computing pace, so a fully depleted Cursor window still reaches pace rendering. (Sources/CodexBar/MenuCardView+ModelHelpers.swift:416, 6ab1cbb7daee)
• Existing depleted-window behavior: UsageStore.weeklyPace already returns nil when window.remainingPercent is zero, supporting the PR's stated alignment with the store pace path. (Sources/CodexBar/UsageStore+HistoricalPace.swift:9, 6ab1cbb7daee)
• CLI depleted-window behavior: The CLI pace computation also guards window.remainingPercent > 0, so depleted windows do not emit pace text in that surface. (Sources/CodexBarCLI/CLIRenderer.swift:486, 6ab1cbb7daee)
• Patch scope: The current PR diff is limited to the Cursor menu-card model helper and a focused Cursor menu-card model test; the earlier workflow deletion concern is no longer present. (Sources/CodexBar/MenuCardView+ModelHelpers.swift:414, b0643a6eaff1)

Likely related people:

• steipete: Git blame ties the helper to commit 4d1055f, and history shows the Cursor billing-cycle pace feature was introduced in commit 9182428. (role: introduced current helper and Cursor billing-cycle pace behavior; confidence: high; commits: 91824283af5f, 4d1055f9e546; files: Sources/CodexBar/MenuCardView+ModelHelpers.swift, Sources/CodexBar/MenuCardView.swift, Tests/CodexBarTests/CursorMenuCardModelTests.swift)
• Yuxin-Qiao: Current-main history includes prior merged work touching the same menu-card model helper and menu-card behavior, separate from this PR. (role: recent adjacent contributor; confidence: medium; commits: 421bf576abc0; files: Sources/CodexBar/MenuCardView+ModelHelpers.swift, Sources/CodexBar/MenuCardView.swift)
• Kentoku Matsunami: The CLI pace rendering path used as alignment evidence was recently updated in commit 5bfd1d1. (role: adjacent CLI pace contributor; confidence: medium; commits: 5bfd1d1474bb; files: Sources/CodexBarCLI/CLIRenderer.swift)

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.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 04f5f1ff01

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Restore the upstream monitor workflow

Deleting this file removes the only scheduled/manual GitHub Actions entry point for upstream checks, while the repo still documents using .github/workflows/upstream-monitor.yml and Actions → Monitor Upstream Changes in docs/FORK_SETUP.md and docs/UPSTREAM_STRATEGY.md. With this commit, maintainers no longer get the advertised upstream-sync issue updates unless the workflow is restored or the docs/scripts are updated to a replacement process.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[Yuxin-Qiao]

Addressed ClawSweeper feedback:

• Restored cursor-only scope on b0643a6e (no upstream-monitor.yml deletion).
• Added redacted live CLI output and menu-model test proof to the PR body.
• Local validation: CursorMenuCardModelTests 4/4 pass, make check pass.

@clawsweeper re-review

[clawsweeper]

🦞🧹
ClawSweeper re-review requested.

I asked ClawSweeper to review this item again.
Action: item re-review queued (workflow sweep.yml, event repository_dispatch).
Result: the existing ClawSweeper review comment will be edited in place when the review finishes.