yetone
9e665491ec
The Context tab now replays the period's calls of each agent against the
settings that decide what they cost, and shows, per agent and per model,
the value that would have used the fewest tokens for how this user works:
Claude Code's auto-compact window per model (modelSettings.<model>.
autoCompactWindow), its main and subagent prompt cache lifetimes
(promptCacheTtl, subagentPromptCacheTtl: 5m or 1h), and Codex's
model_auto_compact_token_limit. Each row says where the value comes from
now (the agent's default, the user's own setting, one magpie set, or a
variable that comes first and locks it), why (how fast conversations grow,
what a compaction leaves, how long the user pauses), the cost curve, and
the saving. Nothing is written until "Use …" is clicked; what was there is
stashed and Undo puts it back, unless the user changed it since. A window
the user set past the model's own is shown capped, as Claude Code caps it
(min(setting, model window)), so no saving is claimed that wouldn't happen.
Advice under a 3% saving is "already the leanest".
On the owner's 7 days (88K Claude Code calls, 956 Codex): opus keeps 200K
(their 500K is capped to it), fable 5.1 200K → 160K saves 5% (2.56M
tokens), both cache lifetimes and Codex's 272K are already the leanest.
Run: go vet ./... and go test ./... pass (internal/tune, internal/agent
TestTune*: user-set values kept, env locks, undo after a user edit, TOML
key order). context-tune.test.cjs passes in Chromium and WebKit, en/zh/
zh-TW/ja/de, at 360 and 1100px (22); context-window, context-scroll-end
pass. Full GUI suite: library-servers-bulk and market-have failed once
under load and pass alone; market-have fails on origin/main 494dedcf too
(1 of 8 runs). Claude Code 2.1.296 in a sandbox config dir shows
"Auto-compact window for Fable 5.1: 160k tokens (from settings)" for the
written modelSettings key. The real-data advice was read from the owner's
own ~/.claude and ~/.codex, nothing written.
Subsystem design references
These pages describe current responsibilities, runtime paths, state, and contracts. Start with the subsystem relevant to your task, then follow its source links to verify the implementation you change.
| Subsystem | Reference |
|---|---|
| Built-in subscriptions moving to plugins | Provider and plugin ownership |
| Plugins that run on the gateway's requests and replies | Gateway middleware |
| Claude subscription turns across Claude Code runs | Claude subscription bridge |
| How the gateway picks a provider, key or account, and falls back | Gateway routing and fallback |
| Gateway Session Aggregation | Gateway Session Aggregation |
| Connecting an agent's config to the gateway, drift, disconnect, WSL twins | Agent wiring |
| Providers, keys, subscription accounts, refresh and allowance | Providers and accounts |
| Instructions, MCP servers, skills and RTK written into agents | Library |
Tray, panel, window, magpie web and the page's JSON API |
GUI app shell |
A subsystem can span several packages or repositories. Its reference describes the behavior those parts provide together; it does not need to list every function.
Maintain a reference
Update the owning reference in the same PR when a change alters a documented responsibility, interface, state transition, runtime path, compatibility rule, or failure behavior. An internal refactor that preserves these contracts does not require a prose change.
Keep each fact in one reference and link to it from agent instructions or other pages. Link to source files and named symbols rather than copying implementation details that change frequently. Explain field meanings and constraints that signatures alone do not express.
For a new reference, include the responsibilities and boundaries, source of truth, main runtime paths, state transitions, important constraints, and existing verification commands. Include failure and compatibility behavior where relevant. Document current behavior separately from proposed changes; the proposal belongs in its issue or PR.
Describe a PR's semantic changes
For each affected subsystem, explain the observable change with its trigger and before/after behavior. Include changes to interfaces, state, compatibility, and failure behavior when relevant. Link the affected reference, implementation, and verification evidence. State when a refactor preserves the documented behavior.
For example, a change to plugin adoption should explain which migration state and account condition trigger it, which implementation handles requests before and after adoption, and which test exercises that transition.
This is an author-provided explanation that a reviewer verifies against the diff and surrounding code. It is not an automatically proven compatibility verdict.
Review a change
- Identify the affected subsystem and the actual runtime path, including plugin or built-in ownership.
- Compare the claimed before/after behavior with the base and head implementation. Trace relevant callers and state transitions beyond the changed lines.
- Check that changed contracts appear in the owning reference and that source links still resolve.
- Check that the cited tests or runtime evidence exercise the claimed behavior. Report checks that were not run.
A documentation update alone does not prove the implementation. Existing tests and runtime evidence remain necessary for behavior changes.