docs(changelog): collect Claude menu and Bedrock disclosure fixes

[steipete]

Collect the release notes for #3496 (Bedrock monitoring charges) and #3498 (Claude segmented account menus) in one independent notes PR. Consolidate the duplicated pending Antigravity #3489 entry, retaining its quota, reset, filtering, and contributor details.

Land after both code PRs. Released sections are byte-for-byte unchanged, and the existing 0.56.9 Unreleased version remains. Dependency and action pins were checked against upstream tags; no new compatible update was found. KeyboardShortcuts 3 and Swift Crypto 4 remain separate migration work.

Validation: released-history comparison, duplicate-reference check, diff checks, and independent review through P2. Runtime and full-suite proof belong to the linked code PRs. This PR does not authorize a release or publish artifacts.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 26781dd590

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Land the Bedrock disclosure before advertising it

In the reviewed tree, BedrockProviderImplementation.settingsPickers and settingsFields still contain only the authentication and credential descriptions, with no monitoring-charge disclosure or pricing link. The repo-wide search finds those details only in docs/bedrock.md, which was already recorded under 0.56.4, so releasing 0.56.9 from this tree would either repeat an old documentation change or claim the absent #3496 in-app fix; land that implementation first or omit this entry.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Land the Claude menu fix before advertising it

When claude-swap has at least four accounts, StatusItemController+ClaudeSwapMenu.swift still selects compactAccountPlan without consulting settings.multiAccountMenuLayout, while PersonalInfoRedactor.redactEmail still turns an email label into an empty string rather than a stable slot label. Thus the reviewed tree does not provide either the promised segmented-preference behavior or privacy-safe slot numbering; land #3498 before adding its 0.56.9 release note.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: blocked before merge. Reviewed September 8, 2026, 4:14 AM ET / 08:14 UTC.

ClawSweeper review

What this changes

Add Unreleased notes for Bedrock monitoring-charge disclosures and Claude account-menu fixes, and consolidate the duplicate Antigravity entry.

Merge readiness

⛔ Blocked before merge - 2 items remain

Keep open: this is a useful, narrowly scoped notes update whose two implementation prerequisites remain unmerged. The owner-authored PR is also protected from automatic closure.

Priority: P3
Reviewed head: 855f136f86013ade2a037779a6980ad7607d0694

Review scores

Measure	Result	What it means
Overall readiness	🐚 platinum hermit (4/6)	A focused, accurate notes update with preserved release history and an explicit implementation prerequisite.
Proof confidence	🌊 off-meta tidepool	Not applicable: This owner-authored PR changes only changelog prose; runtime proof belongs to the linked implementations, and the notes were checked directly against their stated behavior and supplied artifacts.
Patch quality	🐚 platinum hermit (4/6)	No actionable review findings were identified.

Verification

Check	Result	Evidence
Real behavior	Not applicable	Not applicable: This owner-authored PR changes only changelog prose; runtime proof belongs to the linked implementations, and the notes were checked directly against their stated behavior and supplied artifacts.
Evidence reviewed	7 items	Verified introduced scope: The complete pinned main-to-head diff changes only CHANGELOG.md: three lines added and two removed, all within 0.56.9 Unreleased. The existing numeric-safety notes remain intact. Release history preserved: Read-only byte comparison confirmed that the section starting at 0.56.8 and all older sections are identical between pinned main and head. The Unreleased section contains exactly one reference to the Antigravity implementation. git diff --check also passed. Implementation prerequisites remain open: Live GitHub reads confirmed #3496 and #3498 are both open and unmerged. The captured PR body explicitly requires landing after both. Earlier review comments flag the same ordering requirement; it remains a prerequisite rather than a separate repair to this notes-only branch.
Findings	None	None.
Security	None	None.

How this fits together

CodexBar’s changelog collects user-facing changes for upcoming releases. Release tooling turns the selected version section into GitHub release notes and Sparkle update notes.

flowchart LR
 A[Provider fixes] --> B[Unreleased changelog]
 B --> C[Release preparation]
 C --> D[GitHub release notes]
 C --> E[Sparkle update notes]

Loading

Before merge

• Resolve merge risk (P1) - Landing these notes before both linked implementations would describe fixes absent from main.
• Complete next step (P2) - Land fix(bedrock): disclose monitoring charges in settings #3496 and fix(claude): honor segmented account menu layout #3498 before merging this notes PR.

Agent review details

Security

None.

Review metrics

Metric	Value	Why it matters
Notes consolidation	2 new entries; 2 Antigravity entries consolidated into 1	The update preserves contributor credit and released history while removing duplication.

Merge-risk options

Maintainer options:

1. Decide the mitigation before merge
   Keep one accurate Unreleased entry per change, synchronized with the implementations that actually land.
2. Pause or close
   Do not merge this PR until maintainers decide whether the risk is worth taking.

Technical review

Best possible solution:

Keep one accurate Unreleased entry per change, synchronized with the implementations that actually land.

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

Not applicable: this PR changes release-note prose; the relevant checks are wording, historical preservation, and implementation landing status.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes: a small consolidated changelog update is appropriate, provided the author’s explicit implementation-first ordering is honored.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning medium; reviewed against b1e27d266a8e.

Labels

Label changes:

• add P3: This is a small release-note update with no runtime changes.
• add rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• add status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Not applicable: This owner-authored PR changes only changelog prose; runtime proof belongs to the linked implementations, and the notes were checked directly against their stated behavior and supplied artifacts.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is a small release-note update with no runtime changes.
• rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Not applicable: This owner-authored PR changes only changelog prose; runtime proof belongs to the linked implementations, and the notes were checked directly against their stated behavior and supplied artifacts.

Evidence

What I checked:

• Verified introduced scope: The complete pinned main-to-head diff changes only CHANGELOG.md: three lines added and two removed, all within 0.56.9 Unreleased. The existing numeric-safety notes remain intact. (CHANGELOG.md:12, 855f136f8601)
• Release history preserved: Read-only byte comparison confirmed that the section starting at 0.56.8 and all older sections are identical between pinned main and head. The Unreleased section contains exactly one reference to the Antigravity implementation. git diff --check also passed. (CHANGELOG.md:41, 855f136f8601)
• Implementation prerequisites remain open: Live GitHub reads confirmed fix(bedrock): disclose monitoring charges in settings #3496 and fix(claude): honor segmented account menu layout #3498 are both open and unmerged. The captured PR body explicitly requires landing after both. Earlier review comments flag the same ordering requirement; it remains a prerequisite rather than a separate repair to this notes-only branch. (CHANGELOG.md:12, b1e27d266a8e)
• Current source confirms ordering matters: The reviewed tree's Bedrock settings still have authentication and credential descriptions without the proposed disclosure. Claude-swap still selects its compact/stacked plan without the segmented preference, and personal-information redaction still uses an empty email placeholder. Production files are unchanged by this PR relative to pinned main. (Sources/CodexBar/Providers/Claude/StatusItemController+ClaudeSwapMenu.swift:11, 855f136f8601)
• Release boundary: Release documentation says GitHub and Sparkle notes are extracted from the selected changelog section and release automation rejects an Unreleased heading. The latest release remains v0.56.8; this branch does not publish 0.56.9. (docs/RELEASING.md:19, 855f136f8601)
• Related implementation evidence: The supplied context identifies fix(antigravity): retain unknown usage across CLI quota lanes #3489 as merged. Its downloaded before/after terminal images visibly show individual quota buckets, unavailable usage, and reset context. Downloaded Bedrock images show the new charge disclosure and refresh guidance in the candidate settings pane. These support the note wording without establishing that the pending code PRs have landed.

Likely related people:

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

Rating scale

Score	Internal tier	Crab rank	Meaning
6/6	S	🦀 challenger crab	Exceptional readiness
5/6	A	🦞 diamond lobster	Very strong readiness
4/6	B	🐚 platinum hermit	Good normal PR; ordinary maintainer review
3/6	C	🦐 gold shrimp	Useful, but confidence is limited
2/6	D	🦪 silver shellfish	Proof or implementation needs work
1/6	F	🧂 unranked krab	Not merge-ready
N/A	NA	🌊 off-meta tidepool	Rating does not apply

Overall follows the weaker of proof and patch quality.
Shiny media proof means a screenshot, video, or linked artifact directly shows the changed behavior. Runtime, network, CSP, and security claims still need visible diagnostics.

Workflow

• 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.

[steipete]

Verified notes head 855f136. CI is green: https://github.com/steipete/CodexBar/actions/runs/34202919824. Independent branch review is clean through P2.

The diff against current main is CHANGELOG.md only. Released sections are byte-for-byte unchanged. The notes retain the concurrently landed #3486 entries, add this batch's two fixes, and consolidate the duplicated #3489 entry without dropping behavior or contributor credit.

The two review comments correctly identify the dependency order: merge #3496 and #3498 first, then this notes PR. Its independent branch intentionally does not carry the sibling implementations, in accordance with this sweep's one-final-notes-PR rule. No release is being published from this branch.