Everything I could decide myself is decided. What's left needs
you. Each one carries the recommendation of the session that raised it — if you
agree, pick it and press Done. A model's opinion, where there is one, appears on the card
as a receipt line; cards with no receipt were never put to a model. "I'm not sure" is a real answer and becomes work for me.
You don't need to open the session — pressing Done sends your answer back and it picks up.
1claude-code-review token pool: 10/10 banked accounts pooled; live probe 19:20Z = 1 HTTP 200, 9x429 (7 weekly-capped, 2 session-capped). Rotation ran all day at '1 above reserve'. Reviewer soft-failed on every run 17:59–18:37Z ('You've hit your session limit'), limping on one account since ~19:10Z. Which capacity lever?
In plain terms. Our automated code reviewer runs on 10 Claude subscription accounts and 9 are spent: 7 used their whole weekly allowance (back between Monday 00:00 UTC and Saturday) and 2 their 5-hour window (back 21:40 / 22:30 UTC). One account is working with about a quarter of its week left, and every review on a big change eats a slice of it. All 10 accounts we know of are already pooled, so there is nothing more to add from here — the limit is subscription budget, not wiring. How do we keep reviews running this week: buy more subscriptions, let the reviewer fall back to pay-per-use when the pool is nearly empty, or cut how much each review burns?
The session raising this recommends: Metered API-key fallback for the reviewer when fewer than 2 pool accounts are healthy, with a daily spend cap Needs no one to log in, keeps review quality, only spends when the pool is actually empty, and the cap bounds the bill. Tried first, unsuccessfully: Classified all 4 runs on #8309 (1 real 🔴, then 3 deaths on 'session limit'); read the workflow's pool picker and the rotate log; probed all 10 tokens live for utilization + reset headers; listed the ccswitch bank (10 accounts, all pooled); executed Gera's earlier answer on b89319887 and found nothing left to pull. Also found b88271588 (12d) asked the same thing and its answer assumed spare accounts exist.