CommandCodeAI / CommandCodeAI/command-code

muse spark 1.3 contributor usage bug

Open
#799 2 comments 1 reaction 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Dominant language
No language data
Stars
4k
Forks
350
PR merge metrics
No merged PRs in 30d

Description

Summary

I've used muse spark 1.2 contributor and it it'd been the cheapest model to use at command-code, today was charged my go plan and
started to solve some bugs on a project with 1.3 contributor, only with 54.1m tokens I hit my limits, it means I spent 3 credits on only 54m
tokens. The last month I did 1.2b tokens with 10 credits, doing some numbers it means the performance on my go plan is 666% worst. I hope I
get a reset or part of my credits back.

Expected Behavior

with 300k of cache input I was supposed to get 1 billion tokens on muse spark with 3 credits, I only got 55m.

Actual Behavior

Most of the conversation wasn't cached.

Steps to reproduce the issue

Just coding with muse spark 1.3 contributor

Command Code Version

1.46.0

Operating System

Windows

Terminal/IDE

Unknown

Shell

cmd.exe

Session file (optional)

6a9ce306-af51-4823-b044-d6e85a1eabc7.meta.json

command-code-session-6a9ce306.md

I couldn't upload the session as jsonl.

Fix prompt (optional)

No response

Additional context

No response

Contributor guide

No contributing guide indexed for this repository

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

Research direction

Start by reviewing the attached session metadata and session transcript, then reproduce the reported usage with Command Code 1.46.0, Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor, and the stated Windows cmd.exe environment. Compare cache accounting, token usage, and credit consumption with the expected behavior; done means identifying a reproducible product defect or documenting why the reported usage is expected.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Assessment

Domain
ai, cli
Issue type
Bug
Difficulty
4/5
Estimated time
3-5 days
Activity status
Active
Clarity
Needs clarification
Newbie friendliness
28/100

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.