ggbdpqandfactory-droid[bot]
d81706f974
buildAnthropic asked every Claude that thinks only adaptively for max when the client asked xhigh, on the grounds that 4.6 has no xhigh. Only Opus and Sonnet 4.6 lack it: Anthropic's effort docs list xhigh on Fable 5 and 5.1, Mythos 5 and 5.1, Opus 5.5, 5, 4.8 and 4.7, Sonnet 5.5 and 5, and Haiku 5.5, and describe max as no constraint on token spending. So Codex, Cursor or any Chat client picking xhigh on claude-opus-5-5 was billed for max. Claude Code's own levels in magpie (claudeEffortsFor) already say only Opus and Sonnet 4.6 skip xhigh. Now xhigh becomes max only on 4.6 (noXhigh, which reads the version through claudeVersionOf, shared with adaptiveOnly). A relayed thinking budget is unchanged: budgetOf gives xhigh and max the same budget, and 31999 is Claude Code's old ultrathink, so a budget above high still goes as max. docs/subsystems/gateway-routing.md now says which models are asked adaptively (#1470) and where xhigh stays xhigh. What was run: TestXhighStaysXhighWhereClaudeTakesIt (Chat and Responses through the server stack to a fake Anthropic upstream) fails on the old main with output_config = map[effort:max], want "xhigh" for Opus 5.5 (Chat and Responses), Opus 4.7, Sonnet 5 and Haiku 5.5, and passes with the change; Opus and Sonnet 4.6 get max before and after, and a Fable 5.1 row asserts xhigh. TestAdaptiveThinking's Opus 5.5 xhigh case now asserts xhigh, beside a 4.6 case asserting max. Broken by hand (noXhigh always false) the 4.6 cases fail. gofmt -l prints nothing; go vet -tags nogui ./... passes for darwin, linux and windows; go test -tags nogui -count=1 ./... under a temp HOME passes. Through the aihubmix relay, claude-opus-5-5 with adaptive thinking and effort xhigh answers 200. Not tried against Anthropic directly (no credential outside the keychain); a relay that checks effort against an older list could still refuse xhigh. Reported and fixed by ggbdpq (#1471). Co-authored-by: factory-droid[bot] <138933559+factory-droid[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
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.