[Feature request]: Support Greptile

[theDanielJLewis]

I'd love for CodexBar to track my Greptile usage so I can now if I'm within my monthly limit, or how many credits over my limit I'm using.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: this still needs some work. Reviewed September 28, 2026, 7:21 PM ET / 23:21 UTC.

Summary
CodexBar does not currently track Greptile usage. Provider coverage fits the repository vision, but the request does not establish a Greptile data source for monthly allowance, credits used, and overage, so implementation is not yet scoped.

Reproducibility: not applicable. this requests new provider coverage rather than reporting broken existing behavior. Current provider documentation and source contain no Greptile integration.

Next step
A focused implementation cannot be routed until the Greptile usage source, field meanings, and authentication path are established.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Confirm Greptile's account-scoped usage fields and authentication method, then map reported values through the existing provider plugin snapshot path if it supports them.

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

Not applicable: this requests new provider coverage rather than reporting broken existing behavior. Current provider documentation and source contain no Greptile integration.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Unclear until the Greptile usage source and authentication method are known. The existing plugin snapshot supports the requested presentation shape without establishing that Greptile supplies the necessary values.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Remaining risk / open question:

• The request does not establish an accessible Greptile account data source or authentication contract for monthly allowance, usage, and overage.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning medium; reviewed against 2db68ee85555.

Label changes

Label changes:

• add P3: This is a new provider coverage request without an established implementation source or reported regression.
• add impact:other: The requested impact is visibility into Greptile's monthly credits and overage, which the more specific impact labels do not describe.
• add issue-rating: 🌊 off-meta tidepool: Current issue advisory state selects this label.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is a new provider coverage request without an established implementation source or reported regression.
• impact:other: The requested impact is visibility into Greptile's monthly credits and overage, which the more specific impact labels do not describe.

Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

• Request: The issue asks to track Greptile's monthly limit and credits over that limit, but supplies no usage endpoint, response example, or authentication method.
• Current provider coverage: The current provider list has 87 IDs and does not include Greptile; a search across source, docs, and tests found no Greptile integration. (docs/provider-ids.md:5, 2db68ee85555)
• Existing extension path: Local JavaScript or TypeScript provider plugins can fetch usage and return a generic snapshot; the documented snapshot supports a limit, used amount, and detail rows. (docs/plugins.md:277, 2db68ee85555)
• Runtime integration: The app refreshes an enabled user plugin and publishes its usage snapshot into provider state. (Sources/CodexBar/UsageStore+UserPlugins.swift:79, 2db68ee85555)
• Product direction: VISION.md welcomes provider coverage using existing patterns and calls for sign-off when a provider needs new host APIs or has unclear authentication or privacy behavior. (VISION.md:9, 2db68ee85555)
• Related-work search: A title search of repository issues found this Greptile request and no separate Greptile issue.

Likely related people:

• Peter Steinberger: Suggested for follow-up; no historical authorship or introduction is verified. (role: unverified routing candidate; confidence: low)

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.