Skip to content

fix(usage-limits): invalidate legacy Antigravity cache - #147

Merged
pitimon merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/139-invalidate-legacy-antigravity-cache
Aug 5, 2026
Merged

fix(usage-limits): invalidate legacy Antigravity cache#147
pitimon merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/139-invalidate-legacy-antigravity-cache

Conversation

@pitimon

@pitimon pitimon commented Aug 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Summary

  • stamp newly written Antigravity quota cache blocks with process_scope: current-user-v1
  • fail closed for legacy, missing, or unknown provenance markers
  • preserve the shared Claude cache block and existing expiry validation
  • avoid storing username, UID, email-derived identity, or package-version coupling

Why

Before #138, Antigravity process discovery could read another user's process on a shared host and persist that account's email, plan, and quota. Scoping future process scans does not make already-written cache trustworthy. This one-time schema/provenance gate ensures only cache produced by current-user-scoped code can be served.

Verification

  • strict RED/GREEN regression: new legacy-cache test fails on origin/main
  • current marker fallback still works
  • missing and unknown markers fail closed
  • expired marked cache still follows reset validation
  • live writes stamp the marker
  • npm run ci:local passes: dashboard 320/320, root 1036/1036, all validators green
  • independent review concern about unknown-marker and expiry specificity addressed in committed tests
  • static scan: no secrets, debug artifacts, or dangerous execution added

Closes #139

@pitimon
pitimon merged commit 2f1f05a into main Aug 5, 2026
1 check passed
@pitimon
pitimon deleted the fix/139-invalidate-legacy-antigravity-cache branch August 5, 2026 08:57
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

usage-limits: a cache written before #138 may still hold another account's email

1 participant