feat(usage): surface Codex code-review weekly window + additional_rate_limits fallback

[diegosouzapw]

Summary

Ports the review-quota plumbing half of an upstream fix (author @hiepau1231) into OmniRoute. The Codex usage dashboard only emitted the primary code_review_rate_limit window as quotas.code_review and dropped review descriptors that arrive via the additional_rate_limits array (the shape some ChatGPT Codex plans report).

buildCodexUsageQuotas now:

• Emits the secondary window as quotas.code_review_weekly (mirrors the existing session/weekly pair for the normal rate limit).
• Falls back to the matching additional_rate_limits[] entry when the dedicated code_review_rate_limit block is empty — matched on limit_name, metered_feature, limit_id, id, or name containing code_review, codex_review, or review.

The dedicated block stays preferred when both are present. The existing quotas.code_review key is preserved (back-compat for the dashboard rendering and the usage-service-hardening regression). The new code_review_weekly → "Code Review Weekly" label is registered in ProviderLimits/utils.tsx.

What we did NOT port

• Virtual <model>-review chat-model variants — OmniRoute already exposes codex-auto-review as a dedicated native review model (CODEX_NATIVE_UNPREFIXED_MODELS), so per-model -review aliases would duplicate that surface.
• idToken removal — OmniRoute actively parses the id_token JWT to extract the workspace id used for chatgpt-account-id binding on the usage endpoint (src/lib/oauth/providers/codex.ts::parseIdToken); removing it would break workspace selection.
• max_completion_tokens / max_output_tokens stripping — the Codex executor already enforces an allowlist (RESPONSES_API_ALLOWLIST) that rejects unknown chat-completions fields before they reach upstream.

Test plan

• TDD-RED → GREEN: node --import tsx/esm --test tests/unit/codex-usage-quotas-review-window.test.ts (4 new assertions: secondary-window surfacing, additional_rate_limits fallback, silent-payload back-compat, dedicated-block preference)
• Label parity assertion appended to tests/unit/provider-limits-ui.test.ts
• Full codex-usage regression: node --import tsx/esm --test tests/unit/codex-usage-quotas-review-window.test.ts tests/unit/provider-limits-ui.test.ts tests/unit/usage-service-hardening.test.ts tests/unit/codex-quota-fetcher.test.ts tests/unit/codex-quota-sync-no-proactive-refresh.test.ts — all 55 green
• npm run typecheck:core — clean
• npx eslint on touched files — clean

Inspired-by: upstream contribution by

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request introduces support for extracting and displaying the secondary (weekly) window of Codex code-review rate limits, and adds a fallback mechanism to detect these limits within additional_rate_limits when the dedicated code_review_rate_limit block is missing. It also updates the UI label mapping and adds comprehensive unit tests. The reviewer suggested simplifying the descriptor matching logic to handle hyphenated variants and eliminate redundant checks, as well as checking the title field of entries for better coverage.

Important

The consumer version of Gemini Code Assist on GitHub is being sunset. Starting June 18, 2026, new organization installations will be blocked, and all code review activity will officially cease on July 17, 2026.
For more details on the timeline and next steps, please review the Help Documentation.

[gemini-code-assist]

The current implementation of isCodexReviewLimitDescriptor contains redundant checks (e.g., normalized === "code_review" is fully covered by normalized.includes("code_review")). Additionally, it does not support hyphenated variants like code-review or codex-review which are common in API payloads.

We can simplify and make this check more robust by replacing underscores and hyphens with spaces, then performing a clean match. This handles all common formats (code_review, code-review, code review, etc.) while safely avoiding false positives like preview.

function isCodexReviewLimitDescriptor(...values: unknown[]): boolean {
  return values.some((value) => {
    if (typeof value !== "string") return false;
    const normalized = value.trim().toLowerCase();
    if (!normalized) return false;
    const clean = normalized.replace(/[-_]/g, " ");
    return (
      clean === "review" ||
      clean.includes("code review") ||
      clean.includes("codex review")
    );
  });
}

[gemini-code-assist]

To align with findCodexSparkRateLimit and ensure defensive coverage, we should also check entry["title"] when identifying the review rate limit descriptor. Some plans or upstream variants might report the user-friendly name in the title field.

Suggested change

	if (
	isCodexReviewLimitDescriptor(
	getFieldValue(entry, "limit_name", "limitName"),
	getFieldValue(entry, "metered_feature", "meteredFeature"),
	getFieldValue(entry, "limit_id", "limitId"),
	entry["id"],
	entry["name"]
	)
	) {
	if (
	isCodexReviewLimitDescriptor(
	getFieldValue(entry, "limit_name", "limitName"),
	getFieldValue(entry, "metered_feature", "meteredFeature"),
	getFieldValue(entry, "limit_id", "limitId"),
	entry["id"],
	entry["name"],
	entry["title"]
	)
	) {