Show tertiary usage rows in widget

[LeoLin990405]

Summary

• include provider tertiary usage rows in widget snapshots when the provider supports a tertiary lane
• include tertiary rows in widget legacy fallback rendering
• add coverage for Antigravity Gemini Flash rows in generated and legacy widget data

Testing

• ✅ swift build --target CodexBarWidget
• ⚠️ swift test --filter 'UsageStoreWidgetSnapshotTests|CodexBarWidgetProviderTests' could not run in this local Command Line Tools environment because KeyboardShortcuts fails to compile its SwiftUI #Preview macros without Xcode PreviewsMacros.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs real behavior proof before merge. Reviewed May 26, 2026, 5:04 AM ET / 09:04 UTC.

Summary
This PR adds metadata-gated tertiary usage rows to widget snapshot generation and legacy widget fallback rendering, plus Antigravity-focused coverage.

Reproducibility: yes. source inspection gives a high-confidence reproduction path: current main builds only primary and secondary rows for non-Codex widget snapshots and legacy fallback entries, while Antigravity exposes a supported Gemini Flash tertiary lane. A focused Antigravity UsageSnapshot or ProviderEntry with tertiary data would reproduce the omission without launching the app.

Review metrics: 3 noteworthy metrics.

• Diff size: 4 files, +87/-3. The surface is small enough to review as a focused widget row parity change.
• Widget row paths: 2 changed. Both persisted snapshot rows and legacy fallback rows need matching tertiary behavior for current and older widget payloads.
• Test surface: 1 added, 1 changed. Coverage targets generated widget snapshot data and legacy fallback rendering, but the PR body says the focused tests did not run locally.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🧂 unranked krab
Proof: 🧂 unranked krab
Patch quality: 🐚 platinum hermit
Result: blocked until real behavior proof is added.

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

Rank-up moves:

• Add a redacted screenshot or short recording from a real widget showing Claude, Gemini Pro, and Gemini Flash rows after the change.
• Confirm the focused widget tests in CI or a full Xcode environment, since the PR body says they could not run under local Command Line Tools.

Proof guidance:
Needs real behavior proof before merge: The PR body lists build/test attempts but no after-fix screenshot, recording, logs, or linked artifact showing the widget row behavior; add redacted visual proof and update the PR body to trigger re-review, or ask a maintainer for @clawsweeper re-review.

Mantis proof suggestion
A visible widget row change is best supplemented by real desktop/widget proof if maintainers want independent visual validation. 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 an Antigravity widget with Claude, Gemini Pro, and Gemini Flash usage rows visible after the change.

Risk before merge

• No after-fix real widget proof is attached, so the visible Antigravity tertiary row and small-widget layout fit remain unverified in a real setup.
• The PR body says the focused widget tests could not run in the contributor's Command Line Tools environment, so focused test validation is still pending from CI or a full Xcode setup.

Maintainer options:

1. Decide the mitigation before merge
   Land the narrow widget row-generation change after the contributor adds real widget proof and focused test validation is confirmed by CI or a full Xcode environment.
2. Pause or close
   Do not merge this PR until maintainers decide whether the risk is worth taking.

Next step before merge
No ClawSweeper repair job is appropriate because the remaining blocker is contributor-supplied real behavior proof, not a code repair.

Security
Cleared: The diff only changes Swift widget row construction and tests, with no dependency, script, CI, credential, or supply-chain surface changes.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Land the narrow widget row-generation change after the contributor adds real widget proof and focused test validation is confirmed by CI or a full Xcode environment.

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

Yes, source inspection gives a high-confidence reproduction path: current main builds only primary and secondary rows for non-Codex widget snapshots and legacy fallback entries, while Antigravity exposes a supported Gemini Flash tertiary lane. A focused Antigravity UsageSnapshot or ProviderEntry with tertiary data would reproduce the omission without launching the app.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes, the proposed code path is the narrow maintainable fix: add the metadata-gated tertiary row in both widget row builders and cover generated plus legacy widget data. It still needs real widget proof and focused test confirmation before merge.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against bba645336d3c.

Label changes

Label changes:

• add P3: This is a low-risk widget display parity fix with limited blast radius and no core runtime availability impact.
• add rating: 🧂 unranked krab: Overall readiness is 🧂 unranked krab; proof is 🧂 unranked krab and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• 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 build/test attempts but no after-fix screenshot, recording, logs, or linked artifact showing the widget row behavior; add redacted visual proof and update the PR body to trigger re-review, or ask a maintainer for @clawsweeper re-review.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is a low-risk widget display parity fix with limited blast radius and no core runtime availability impact.
• rating: 🧂 unranked krab: Overall readiness is 🧂 unranked krab; proof is 🧂 unranked krab and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• 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 build/test attempts but no after-fix screenshot, recording, logs, or linked artifact showing the widget row behavior; add redacted visual proof and update the PR body to trigger re-review, or ask a maintainer for @clawsweeper re-review.

Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

• Repository policy read: AGENTS.md was read in full; its focused XCTest guidance and widget UI screenshot/click validation note affected the proof and validation review. (AGENTS.md:1, bba645336d3c)
• Current snapshot rows omit tertiary: Current main's non-Codex widget snapshot rows are built from only primary and secondary rate windows, so a provider tertiary lane is not persisted into usageRows. (Sources/CodexBar/UsageStore+WidgetSnapshot.swift:125, bba645336d3c)
• Current legacy fallback rows omit tertiary: Current main's widget fallback renderer maps legacy ProviderEntry data to only primary and secondary rows when usageRows is absent. (Sources/CodexBarWidget/CodexBarWidgetViews.swift:494, bba645336d3c)
• Antigravity exposes a tertiary lane: Antigravity metadata names primary, secondary, and tertiary lanes as Claude, Gemini Pro, and Gemini Flash and marks supportsOpus true, matching the PR's test target. (Sources/CodexBarCore/Providers/Antigravity/AntigravityProviderDescriptor.swift:13, bba645336d3c)
• PR diff is focused: The PR appends tertiary rows in both widget row builders and adds generated-snapshot plus legacy-fallback tests for Antigravity Gemini Flash rows. (Sources/CodexBar/UsageStore+WidgetSnapshot.swift:125, 63045fc695fa)
• PR body lacks real behavior proof: The PR body reports a successful widget build and an unrun focused test command, but no screenshot, recording, runtime output, or linked artifact showing the changed widget behavior. (63045fc695fa)

Likely related people:

• steipete: Peter Steinberger introduced the widget snapshot/view surface in 98fd481 and the provider switcher in 125c381, and current blame also routes the central widget files through his release-graft commit. (role: widget feature owner; confidence: high; commits: 98fd481366c4, 125c38167957, 333d584a4950; files: Sources/CodexBar/UsageStore+WidgetSnapshot.swift, Sources/CodexBarWidget/CodexBarWidgetViews.swift, Sources/CodexBarCore/WidgetSnapshot.swift)
• ratulsarna: Ratul Sarna changed widget and menu-bar consumers to projection-driven rows in f7e7e93, touching the exact snapshot and fallback row paths this PR extends. (role: adjacent widget/projection contributor; confidence: high; commits: f7e7e933d160; files: Sources/CodexBar/UsageStore+WidgetSnapshot.swift, Sources/CodexBarWidget/CodexBarWidgetViews.swift, Tests/CodexBarTests/CodexBarWidgetProviderTests.swift)
• Larry Hao（郝卓远）: Larry Hao recently updated Antigravity account switching and descriptor/remote usage code, which is the provider used by the new tertiary-row tests. (role: recent Antigravity contributor; confidence: medium; commits: a15df5ca5964; files: Sources/CodexBarCore/Providers/Antigravity/AntigravityProviderDescriptor.swift, Sources/CodexBarCore/Providers/Antigravity/AntigravityRemoteUsageFetcher.swift)
• 陳柏瑋: This author added OAuth-backed Antigravity remote usage and touched the Antigravity descriptor and usage fetcher area that supplies the tested provider data. (role: Antigravity OAuth contributor; confidence: medium; commits: e98c8f5e4c0d; files: Sources/CodexBarCore/Providers/Antigravity/AntigravityProviderDescriptor.swift, Sources/CodexBarCore/Providers/Antigravity/AntigravityRemoteUsageFetcher.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.