Show standard and fast cost splits

[iam-brain]

Summary

• show total model tokens/cost plus a second standard/fast line in cost graph details
• cache standard/fast cost and token splits as day/model aggregates instead of retaining raw Codex rows
• keep the menu card inline dashboard scoped away from the local cost graph

Visual Proof

Verification

• swift test --filter CostUsageScannerPriorityTests
• swift test --filter CostUsageScannerCodexPriorityTests
• swift test --filter CostUsageDailyReportMergeTests
• swift test --filter MenuCardModelTests
• make check
• swift build

Notes

• Clean remote-main noise checked earlier: MistralUsageParserTests has an existing month expectation failure; OpenAIDashboardNavigationDelegateTests passed.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: dcf30d9f24

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".

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs real behavior proof before merge.

Latest ClawSweeper review: 2026-05-22 13:28 UTC / May 22, 2026, 9:28 AM ET.

Workflow note: Future ClawSweeper reviews update this same comment in place.

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.

Summary
The PR adds Codex standard-versus-fast cost and token splits to cost history model breakdowns, cache aggregates, chart details, and focused tests.

Reproducibility: not applicable. this is a feature PR, not a bug report. Source inspection confirms current main only exposes total model cost/tokens, while the PR adds the requested split fields and UI line.

PR rating
Overall: 🦪 silver shellfish
Proof: 🦪 silver shellfish
Patch quality: 🐚 platinum hermit
Summary: The patch looks focused and well-covered by tests, but the missing real behavior proof keeps the overall merge signal thin.

Rank-up moves:

• Add a screenshot, recording, or redacted live/terminal output showing the cost graph detail with total plus Std/Fast split lines.
• Redact private paths, account details, API keys, and any non-public usage data from posted proof.

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.

Real behavior proof
Needs real behavior proof before merge: The PR body lists tests/build commands only; before merge, add a screenshot/recording or redacted live output showing the Std/Fast chart detail, and updating the PR body should trigger re-review or a maintainer can request @clawsweeper re-review. After adding proof, update the PR body; ClawSweeper should re-review automatically. If it does not, the PR author or someone with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review.

Mantis proof suggestion
A short desktop visual proof would materially help verify the changed cost chart detail rendering. A maintainer can ask Mantis to capture proof by posting a new PR comment that starts with the OpenClaw Mantis account mention, followed by:

visual task: verify CodexBar cost history detail shows total cost/tokens plus Std and Fast split lines for mixed Codex usage.

Risk before merge

• The PR body lists tests and build commands but no screenshot, recording, redacted live output, or runtime log showing the cost graph detail after the change.
• This read-only review did not run the Swift tests or launch the app, so runtime confidence depends on the contributor's listed verification plus source inspection.

Maintainer options:

1. Decide the mitigation before merge
   Land this after a maintainer is satisfied with runtime proof that the chart detail shows total model cost/tokens and Std/Fast splits for mixed Codex usage.
2. Pause or close
   Do not merge this PR until maintainers decide whether the risk is worth taking.

Next step before merge
No narrow repair is indicated; the remaining blocker is contributor or maintainer runtime proof before normal merge review.

Security
Cleared: No concrete security or supply-chain regression was found; the diff stays within Swift app logic/tests/changelog and does not add dependencies, workflows, secrets handling, or downloaded code.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Land this after a maintainer is satisfied with runtime proof that the chart detail shows total model cost/tokens and Std/Fast splits for mixed Codex usage.

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

Not applicable: this is a feature PR, not a bug report. Source inspection confirms current main only exposes total model cost/tokens, while the PR adds the requested split fields and UI line.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes, with one merge-gate caveat: extending the existing ModelBreakdown and Codex cache aggregate surfaces is a narrow maintainable approach that avoids retaining raw rows, but real UI/runtime proof is still missing.

Label changes:

• add P2: This is a normal user-facing cost history improvement with focused scanner, cache, UI, and test impact.
• add rating: 🦪 silver shellfish: Current PR rating is 🦪 silver shellfish because proof is 🦪 silver shellfish, patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit, and The patch looks focused and well-covered by tests, but the missing real behavior proof keeps the overall merge signal thin.
• add status: 📣 needs proof: The PR needs real behavior proof before ClawSweeper can clear the contributor ask. Needs real behavior proof before merge: The PR body lists tests/build commands only; before merge, add a screenshot/recording or redacted live output showing the Std/Fast chart detail, and updating the PR body should trigger re-review or a maintainer can request @clawsweeper re-review. After adding proof, update the PR body; ClawSweeper should re-review automatically. If it does not, the PR author or someone with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review.

Label justifications:

• P2: This is a normal user-facing cost history improvement with focused scanner, cache, UI, and test impact.
• rating: 🦪 silver shellfish: Current PR rating is 🦪 silver shellfish because proof is 🦪 silver shellfish, patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit, and The patch looks focused and well-covered by tests, but the missing real behavior proof keeps the overall merge signal thin.
• status: 📣 needs proof: The PR needs real behavior proof before ClawSweeper can clear the contributor ask. Needs real behavior proof before merge: The PR body lists tests/build commands only; before merge, add a screenshot/recording or redacted live output showing the Std/Fast chart detail, and updating the PR body should trigger re-review or a maintainer can request @clawsweeper re-review. After adding proof, update the PR body; ClawSweeper should re-review automatically. If it does not, the PR author or someone with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review.

What I checked:

• Current main lacks split fields: Current main's CostUsageDailyReport.ModelBreakdown only carries modelName, costUSD, and totalTokens, so the requested standard/fast split is not already implemented. (Sources/CodexBarCore/CostUsageModels.swift:32, 097d502afb29)
• PR extends the report model: The PR head adds standardCostUSD, priorityCostUSD, standardTokens, and priorityTokens to ModelBreakdown and preserves decoding for existing cost fields. (Sources/CodexBarCore/CostUsageModels.swift:36, 582be208a4d5)
• PR computes split cache aggregates: The PR head builds separate standard/priority cost and token maps, then uses them when constructing model breakdowns for the daily Codex report. (Sources/CodexBarCore/Vendored/CostUsage/CostUsageScanner+CacheHelpers.swift:456, 582be208a4d5)
• PR renders the chart detail split: The chart detail rows now include an optional modeSubtitle and format Std/Fast cost and token parts under the total model line. (Sources/CodexBar/CostHistoryChartMenuView.swift:472, 582be208a4d5)
• Focused tests cover split behavior: The PR adds expectations for standard and priority costs/tokens, completed-model priority pricing, cache migration, and priority alias behavior. (Tests/CodexBarTests/CostUsageScannerPriorityTests.swift:47, 582be208a4d5)
• Prior review feedback was addressed: The GitHub review thread flagged detail-row clipping; the author replied that 9f89c97 fixed it, and the head code computes maxDetailRowsHeight using rendered row metrics plus compact fillers. (Sources/CodexBar/CostHistoryChartMenuView.swift:272, 9f89c9758d29)

Likely related people:

• Peter Steinberger: Current-main blame for the cost report model, Codex cache report builder, and cost history chart points to Peter, and the PR branch also contains several follow-up commits by steipete in this area. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: medium; commits: 2db843a4600f, f3a1d4ed540e, eba5f22a7528; files: Sources/CodexBarCore/CostUsageModels.swift, Sources/CodexBarCore/Vendored/CostUsage/CostUsageScanner+CacheHelpers.swift, Sources/CodexBar/CostHistoryChartMenuView.swift)

Codex review notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against 097d502afb29.

[clawsweeper]

ClawSweeper PR egg

🎁 Pass real behavior proof to wake the egg and unlock a hatchable treat.

Where did the egg go?

• The egg game starts only after the PR passes the real-behavior proof check.
• Before that, no creature or rarity is rolled. The treat waits for real proof.
• This is still just collectible flavor: proof affects review readiness, not creature quality.

[iam-brain]

ClawSweeper PR egg

🎁 Pass real behavior proof to wake the egg and unlock a hatchable treat.

Where did the egg go?

Whoops, visual proof added to summary.