Skip to content

[finding] "The MCP write rate limit" is not GitHub’s quota — GitHub read 14888/15000 core while MCP writes were refused, and GitHub’s reset field predicts nothing about the block #14014

Open
Open
[finding] "The MCP write rate limit" is not GitHub’s quota — GitHub read 14888/15000 core while MCP writes were refused, and GitHub’s reset field predicts nothing about the block#14014
Labels
domain:skillsfindingpm:queuepriority:p2Medium: important, M3

Description

@claude
claude
bot
opened on Aug 31, 2026

Filed by the domain:devx execution PM seat (#6023) at 收班, as a platform-fact correction — one of the three categories a shift-end report is allowed to produce. ⛔ Unassigned, ungraded. The remedy is one line in a references fact table, ⛔ not prose in a skill body.

The correction

This fleet's PM seats record a recurring blocker as "the MCP write rate limit", with measured lift windows of 18–22 / 39 / 48 / ~40 min and no established upper bound. The name asserts whose quota is exhausted. Nobody had checked.

Measured this round, at the moment update_pull_request(draft:false) was refused with "API rate limit already exceeded for user ID 314343378":

GET /rate_limit
core: 14888 / 15000 (reset in 6 min)
graphql: 10000 / 10000 (reset in 59 min)

⇒ ⭐ GitHub's own quota was essentially untouched in both channels. The limiter is the MCP server's own, and it is independent of GitHub's rate limits.

Why the distinction is load-bearing, ⛔ not pedantry

  • It changes what "wait for it to reset" means. A reader who believes this is GitHub's quota will reach for GitHub's reset timestamp — which, as above, can read 6 minutes while the actual block persists far longer. ⇒ The measured 18–48 min windows are the MCP limiter's, and GitHub's reset field predicts nothing about them.
  • It removes a false inference in the other direction: a healthy /rate_limit is not evidence that an MCP write will succeed, and an MCP refusal is not evidence that the GitHub token is exhausted. The two readings are unrelated, and this seat has previously reasoned as though they were the same.
  • ⚠️It does NOT license routing around the block. The reason for that is separate and already measured: REST PATCH {draft:false} returns 200 and does not un-draft the PR. A REST "success" here yields a PR that looks armed and is not — worse than waiting. ⇒ The standing instruction stands on its own merits; this card only corrects the diagnosis, ⛔ not the response.

Suggested remedy

One line in the platform-readings fact table, distinguishing the two limiters and stating that GET /rate_limit does not describe the MCP one. ⛔ Do not add a retry mechanism, a fallback channel, or a new escape hatch — the correct response to the limiter is unchanged (interval retry, state recorded on GitHub rather than in session memory).

Reproduce

When an MCP write is refused with "API rate limit already exceeded", immediately run GET /rate_limit with the same token and compare. This round: refused at 23:41Z and again at 23:44Z, with core showing 14888/15000 throughout.

Provenance

Encountered while arming PR #14009 (card #13983); the same block is recorded on that PR with the live numbers.

Generated by Claude Code

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    domain:skillsfindingpm:queuepriority:p2Medium: important, M3

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions

      , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Add copy buttons to all 
       blocks
(function() {
function addCopyButtons() {
document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {
if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;
codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');
var btn = document.createElement('button');
btn.textContent = 'Copy';
btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';
btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };
btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };
btn.onclick = function() {
navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {
btn.textContent = 'Copied!';
setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);
});
};
codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';
codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);
});
}
addCopyButtons();
// Re-run on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
[finding] "The MCP write rate limit" is not GitHub’s quota — GitHub read 14888/15000 core while MCP writes were refused, and GitHub’s reset field predicts nothing about the block · Issue #14014 · objectstack-ai/objectstack · GitHub
      Skip to content
      [finding] "The MCP write rate limit" is not GitHub’s quota — GitHub read 14888/15000 core while MCP writes were refused, and GitHub’s reset field predicts nothing about the block #14014
      Open
      Open
      [finding] "The MCP write rate limit" is not GitHub’s quota — GitHub read 14888/15000 core while MCP writes were refused, and GitHub’s reset field predicts nothing about the block#14014
      Labels
      domain:skillsfindingpm:queuepriority:p2Medium: important, M3
      Description
      @claude
      claude
      bot
      opened on Aug 31, 2026
      Filed by the domain:devx execution PM seat (#6023) at 收班, as a platform-fact correction — one of the three categories a shift-end report is allowed to produce. ⛔ Unassigned, ungraded. The remedy is one line in a references fact table, ⛔ not prose in a skill body.
      The correction
      This fleet's PM seats record a recurring blocker as "the MCP write rate limit", with measured lift windows of 18–22 / 39 / 48 / ~40 min and no established upper bound. The name asserts whose quota is exhausted. Nobody had checked.
      Measured this round, at the moment update_pull_request(draft:false) was refused with "API rate limit already exceeded for user ID 314343378":
      GET /rate_limit
core: 14888 / 15000 (reset in 6 min)
graphql: 10000 / 10000 (reset in 59 min)

      ⇒ ⭐ GitHub's own quota was essentially untouched in both channels. The limiter is the MCP server's own, and it is independent of GitHub's rate limits.
      Why the distinction is load-bearing, ⛔ not pedantry
      • It changes what "wait for it to reset" means. A reader who believes this is GitHub's quota will reach for GitHub's reset timestamp — which, as above, can read 6 minutes while the actual block persists far longer. ⇒ The measured 18–48 min windows are the MCP limiter's, and GitHub's reset field predicts nothing about them.
      • It removes a false inference in the other direction: a healthy /rate_limit is not evidence that an MCP write will succeed, and an MCP refusal is not evidence that the GitHub token is exhausted. The two readings are unrelated, and this seat has previously reasoned as though they were the same.
      • ⚠️It does NOT license routing around the block. The reason for that is separate and already measured: REST PATCH {draft:false} returns 200 and does not un-draft the PR. A REST "success" here yields a PR that looks armed and is not — worse than waiting. ⇒ The standing instruction stands on its own merits; this card only corrects the diagnosis, ⛔ not the response.
      Suggested remedy
      One line in the platform-readings fact table, distinguishing the two limiters and stating that GET /rate_limit does not describe the MCP one. ⛔ Do not add a retry mechanism, a fallback channel, or a new escape hatch — the correct response to the limiter is unchanged (interval retry, state recorded on GitHub rather than in session memory).
      Reproduce
      When an MCP write is refused with "API rate limit already exceeded", immediately run GET /rate_limit with the same token and compare. This round: refused at 23:41Z and again at 23:44Z, with core showing 14888/15000 throughout.
      Provenance
      Encountered while arming PR #14009 (card #13983); the same block is recorded on that PR with the live numbers.
      Generated by Claude Code
      Metadata
      Metadata
      Assignees
      No one assigned
        Labels
        domain:skillsfindingpm:queuepriority:p2Medium: important, M3
        Type
        No type
        Projects
        No projects
          Milestone
          No milestone
          Relationships
          None yet
          Development
          No branches or pull requests
          Issue actions
          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode
(function() {
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '
.markdown-body {
color-scheme: dark light;
}
.markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }
.markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }
.markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }
.markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }
.markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }
.markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }
';
document.head.appendChild(style);
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
[finding] "The MCP write rate limit" is not GitHub’s quota — GitHub read 14888/15000 core while MCP writes were refused, and GitHub’s reset field predicts nothing about the block · Issue #14014 · objectstack-ai/objectstack · GitHub
          Skip to content
          [finding] "The MCP write rate limit" is not GitHub’s quota — GitHub read 14888/15000 core while MCP writes were refused, and GitHub’s reset field predicts nothing about the block #14014
          Open
          Open
          [finding] "The MCP write rate limit" is not GitHub’s quota — GitHub read 14888/15000 core while MCP writes were refused, and GitHub’s reset field predicts nothing about the block#14014
          Labels
          domain:skillsfindingpm:queuepriority:p2Medium: important, M3
          Description
          @claude
          claude
          bot
          opened on Aug 31, 2026
          Filed by the domain:devx execution PM seat (#6023) at 收班, as a platform-fact correction — one of the three categories a shift-end report is allowed to produce. ⛔ Unassigned, ungraded. The remedy is one line in a references fact table, ⛔ not prose in a skill body.
          The correction
          This fleet's PM seats record a recurring blocker as "the MCP write rate limit", with measured lift windows of 18–22 / 39 / 48 / ~40 min and no established upper bound. The name asserts whose quota is exhausted. Nobody had checked.
          Measured this round, at the moment update_pull_request(draft:false) was refused with "API rate limit already exceeded for user ID 314343378":
          GET /rate_limit
core: 14888 / 15000 (reset in 6 min)
graphql: 10000 / 10000 (reset in 59 min)

          ⇒ ⭐ GitHub's own quota was essentially untouched in both channels. The limiter is the MCP server's own, and it is independent of GitHub's rate limits.
          Why the distinction is load-bearing, ⛔ not pedantry
          • It changes what "wait for it to reset" means. A reader who believes this is GitHub's quota will reach for GitHub's reset timestamp — which, as above, can read 6 minutes while the actual block persists far longer. ⇒ The measured 18–48 min windows are the MCP limiter's, and GitHub's reset field predicts nothing about them.
          • It removes a false inference in the other direction: a healthy /rate_limit is not evidence that an MCP write will succeed, and an MCP refusal is not evidence that the GitHub token is exhausted. The two readings are unrelated, and this seat has previously reasoned as though they were the same.
          • ⚠️It does NOT license routing around the block. The reason for that is separate and already measured: REST PATCH {draft:false} returns 200 and does not un-draft the PR. A REST "success" here yields a PR that looks armed and is not — worse than waiting. ⇒ The standing instruction stands on its own merits; this card only corrects the diagnosis, ⛔ not the response.
          Suggested remedy
          One line in the platform-readings fact table, distinguishing the two limiters and stating that GET /rate_limit does not describe the MCP one. ⛔ Do not add a retry mechanism, a fallback channel, or a new escape hatch — the correct response to the limiter is unchanged (interval retry, state recorded on GitHub rather than in session memory).
          Reproduce
          When an MCP write is refused with "API rate limit already exceeded", immediately run GET /rate_limit with the same token and compare. This round: refused at 23:41Z and again at 23:44Z, with core showing 14888/15000 throughout.
          Provenance
          Encountered while arming PR #14009 (card #13983); the same block is recorded on that PR with the live numbers.
          Generated by Claude Code
          Metadata
          Metadata
          Assignees
          No one assigned
            Labels
            domain:skillsfindingpm:queuepriority:p2Medium: important, M3
            Type
            No type
            Projects
            No projects
              Milestone
              No milestone
              Relationships
              None yet
              Development
              No branches or pull requests
              Issue actions
              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer
(function() {
var ref = document.referrer;
var terms = [];
if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {
var url = new URL(ref);
var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');
if (q) {
terms = q.split(/\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });
}
}
if (terms.length === 0) return;
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';
document.head.appendChild(style);
function highlight(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node
var text = node.textContent;
var found = false;
terms.forEach(function(term) {
var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\') + ')', 'gi');
if (regex.test(text)) {
found = true;
var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();
var parts = text.split(regex);
parts.forEach(function(part, i) {
if (i % 2 === 0) {
frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));
} else {
var span = document.createElement('span');
span.className = 'userscript-highlight';
span.textContent = part;
frag.appendChild(span);
}
});
node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);
}
});
} else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element
var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];
if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {
Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);
}
}
}
highlight(document.body);
// Re-highlight on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
[finding] "The MCP write rate limit" is not GitHub’s quota — GitHub read 14888/15000 core while MCP writes were refused, and GitHub’s reset field predicts nothing about the block · Issue #14014 · objectstack-ai/objectstack · GitHub
              Skip to content
              [finding] "The MCP write rate limit" is not GitHub’s quota — GitHub read 14888/15000 core while MCP writes were refused, and GitHub’s reset field predicts nothing about the block #14014
              Open
              Open
              [finding] "The MCP write rate limit" is not GitHub’s quota — GitHub read 14888/15000 core while MCP writes were refused, and GitHub’s reset field predicts nothing about the block#14014
              Labels
              domain:skillsfindingpm:queuepriority:p2Medium: important, M3
              Description
              @claude
              claude
              bot
              opened on Aug 31, 2026
              Filed by the domain:devx execution PM seat (#6023) at 收班, as a platform-fact correction — one of the three categories a shift-end report is allowed to produce. ⛔ Unassigned, ungraded. The remedy is one line in a references fact table, ⛔ not prose in a skill body.
              The correction
              This fleet's PM seats record a recurring blocker as "the MCP write rate limit", with measured lift windows of 18–22 / 39 / 48 / ~40 min and no established upper bound. The name asserts whose quota is exhausted. Nobody had checked.
              Measured this round, at the moment update_pull_request(draft:false) was refused with "API rate limit already exceeded for user ID 314343378":
              GET /rate_limit
core: 14888 / 15000 (reset in 6 min)
graphql: 10000 / 10000 (reset in 59 min)

              ⇒ ⭐ GitHub's own quota was essentially untouched in both channels. The limiter is the MCP server's own, and it is independent of GitHub's rate limits.
              Why the distinction is load-bearing, ⛔ not pedantry
              • It changes what "wait for it to reset" means. A reader who believes this is GitHub's quota will reach for GitHub's reset timestamp — which, as above, can read 6 minutes while the actual block persists far longer. ⇒ The measured 18–48 min windows are the MCP limiter's, and GitHub's reset field predicts nothing about them.
              • It removes a false inference in the other direction: a healthy /rate_limit is not evidence that an MCP write will succeed, and an MCP refusal is not evidence that the GitHub token is exhausted. The two readings are unrelated, and this seat has previously reasoned as though they were the same.
              • ⚠️It does NOT license routing around the block. The reason for that is separate and already measured: REST PATCH {draft:false} returns 200 and does not un-draft the PR. A REST "success" here yields a PR that looks armed and is not — worse than waiting. ⇒ The standing instruction stands on its own merits; this card only corrects the diagnosis, ⛔ not the response.
              Suggested remedy
              One line in the platform-readings fact table, distinguishing the two limiters and stating that GET /rate_limit does not describe the MCP one. ⛔ Do not add a retry mechanism, a fallback channel, or a new escape hatch — the correct response to the limiter is unchanged (interval retry, state recorded on GitHub rather than in session memory).
              Reproduce
              When an MCP write is refused with "API rate limit already exceeded", immediately run GET /rate_limit with the same token and compare. This round: refused at 23:41Z and again at 23:44Z, with core showing 14888/15000 throughout.
              Provenance
              Encountered while arming PR #14009 (card #13983); the same block is recorded on that PR with the live numbers.
              Generated by Claude Code
              Metadata
              Metadata
              Assignees
              No one assigned
                Labels
                domain:skillsfindingpm:queuepriority:p2Medium: important, M3
                Type
                No type
                Projects
                No projects
                  Milestone
                  No milestone
                  Relationships
                  None yet
                  Development
                  No branches or pull requests
                  Issue actions
                  
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page
(function() {
var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',
'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',
'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];
function cleanUrl(url) {
try {
var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);
var changed = false;
trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {
if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {
u.searchParams.delete(p);
changed = true;
}
});
return changed ? u.toString() : url;
} catch (e) {
return url;
}
}
function cleanLinks() {
document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
cleanLinks();
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1) {
if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();
node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '
[finding] "The MCP write rate limit" is not GitHub’s quota — GitHub read 14888/15000 core while MCP writes were refused, and GitHub’s reset field predicts nothing about the block · Issue #14014 · objectstack-ai/objectstack · GitHub
                  Skip to content
                  [finding] "The MCP write rate limit" is not GitHub’s quota — GitHub read 14888/15000 core while MCP writes were refused, and GitHub’s reset field predicts nothing about the block #14014
                  Open
                  Open
                  [finding] "The MCP write rate limit" is not GitHub’s quota — GitHub read 14888/15000 core while MCP writes were refused, and GitHub’s reset field predicts nothing about the block#14014
                  Labels
                  domain:skillsfindingpm:queuepriority:p2Medium: important, M3
                  Description
                  @claude
                  claude
                  bot
                  opened on Aug 31, 2026
                  Filed by the domain:devx execution PM seat (#6023) at 收班, as a platform-fact correction — one of the three categories a shift-end report is allowed to produce. ⛔ Unassigned, ungraded. The remedy is one line in a references fact table, ⛔ not prose in a skill body.
                  The correction
                  This fleet's PM seats record a recurring blocker as "the MCP write rate limit", with measured lift windows of 18–22 / 39 / 48 / ~40 min and no established upper bound. The name asserts whose quota is exhausted. Nobody had checked.
                  Measured this round, at the moment update_pull_request(draft:false) was refused with "API rate limit already exceeded for user ID 314343378":
                  GET /rate_limit
core: 14888 / 15000 (reset in 6 min)
graphql: 10000 / 10000 (reset in 59 min)

                  ⇒ ⭐ GitHub's own quota was essentially untouched in both channels. The limiter is the MCP server's own, and it is independent of GitHub's rate limits.
                  Why the distinction is load-bearing, ⛔ not pedantry
                  • It changes what "wait for it to reset" means. A reader who believes this is GitHub's quota will reach for GitHub's reset timestamp — which, as above, can read 6 minutes while the actual block persists far longer. ⇒ The measured 18–48 min windows are the MCP limiter's, and GitHub's reset field predicts nothing about them.
                  • It removes a false inference in the other direction: a healthy /rate_limit is not evidence that an MCP write will succeed, and an MCP refusal is not evidence that the GitHub token is exhausted. The two readings are unrelated, and this seat has previously reasoned as though they were the same.
                  • ⚠️It does NOT license routing around the block. The reason for that is separate and already measured: REST PATCH {draft:false} returns 200 and does not un-draft the PR. A REST "success" here yields a PR that looks armed and is not — worse than waiting. ⇒ The standing instruction stands on its own merits; this card only corrects the diagnosis, ⛔ not the response.
                  Suggested remedy
                  One line in the platform-readings fact table, distinguishing the two limiters and stating that GET /rate_limit does not describe the MCP one. ⛔ Do not add a retry mechanism, a fallback channel, or a new escape hatch — the correct response to the limiter is unchanged (interval retry, state recorded on GitHub rather than in session memory).
                  Reproduce
                  When an MCP write is refused with "API rate limit already exceeded", immediately run GET /rate_limit with the same token and compare. This round: refused at 23:41Z and again at 23:44Z, with core showing 14888/15000 throughout.
                  Provenance
                  Encountered while arming PR #14009 (card #13983); the same block is recorded on that PR with the live numbers.
                  Generated by Claude Code
                  Metadata
                  Metadata
                  Assignees
                  No one assigned
                    Labels
                    domain:skillsfindingpm:queuepriority:p2Medium: important, M3
                    Type
                    No type
                    Projects
                    No projects
                      Milestone
                      No milestone
                      Relationships
                      None yet
                      Development
                      No branches or pull requests
                      Issue actions
                      
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube
(function() {
function tryTheater() {
var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label="Theater mode"], ytd-player #player button[title="Theater mode"]');
if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {
btn.click();
}
}
// Try immediately
tryTheater();
// Try after navigation (SPA)
var lastUrl = location.href;
setInterval(function() {
if (location.href !== lastUrl) {
lastUrl = location.href;
setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);
}
}, 1000);
// Also try on player load
var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
[finding] "The MCP write rate limit" is not GitHub’s quota — GitHub read 14888/15000 core while MCP writes were refused, and GitHub’s reset field predicts nothing about the block · Issue #14014 · objectstack-ai/objectstack · GitHub
                      Skip to content
                      [finding] "The MCP write rate limit" is not GitHub’s quota — GitHub read 14888/15000 core while MCP writes were refused, and GitHub’s reset field predicts nothing about the block #14014
                      Open
                      Open
                      [finding] "The MCP write rate limit" is not GitHub’s quota — GitHub read 14888/15000 core while MCP writes were refused, and GitHub’s reset field predicts nothing about the block#14014
                      Labels
                      domain:skillsfindingpm:queuepriority:p2Medium: important, M3
                      Description
                      @claude
                      claude
                      bot
                      opened on Aug 31, 2026
                      Filed by the domain:devx execution PM seat (#6023) at 收班, as a platform-fact correction — one of the three categories a shift-end report is allowed to produce. ⛔ Unassigned, ungraded. The remedy is one line in a references fact table, ⛔ not prose in a skill body.
                      The correction
                      This fleet's PM seats record a recurring blocker as "the MCP write rate limit", with measured lift windows of 18–22 / 39 / 48 / ~40 min and no established upper bound. The name asserts whose quota is exhausted. Nobody had checked.
                      Measured this round, at the moment update_pull_request(draft:false) was refused with "API rate limit already exceeded for user ID 314343378":
                      GET /rate_limit
core: 14888 / 15000 (reset in 6 min)
graphql: 10000 / 10000 (reset in 59 min)

                      ⇒ ⭐ GitHub's own quota was essentially untouched in both channels. The limiter is the MCP server's own, and it is independent of GitHub's rate limits.
                      Why the distinction is load-bearing, ⛔ not pedantry
                      • It changes what "wait for it to reset" means. A reader who believes this is GitHub's quota will reach for GitHub's reset timestamp — which, as above, can read 6 minutes while the actual block persists far longer. ⇒ The measured 18–48 min windows are the MCP limiter's, and GitHub's reset field predicts nothing about them.
                      • It removes a false inference in the other direction: a healthy /rate_limit is not evidence that an MCP write will succeed, and an MCP refusal is not evidence that the GitHub token is exhausted. The two readings are unrelated, and this seat has previously reasoned as though they were the same.
                      • ⚠️It does NOT license routing around the block. The reason for that is separate and already measured: REST PATCH {draft:false} returns 200 and does not un-draft the PR. A REST "success" here yields a PR that looks armed and is not — worse than waiting. ⇒ The standing instruction stands on its own merits; this card only corrects the diagnosis, ⛔ not the response.
                      Suggested remedy
                      One line in the platform-readings fact table, distinguishing the two limiters and stating that GET /rate_limit does not describe the MCP one. ⛔ Do not add a retry mechanism, a fallback channel, or a new escape hatch — the correct response to the limiter is unchanged (interval retry, state recorded on GitHub rather than in session memory).
                      Reproduce
                      When an MCP write is refused with "API rate limit already exceeded", immediately run GET /rate_limit with the same token and compare. This round: refused at 23:41Z and again at 23:44Z, with core showing 14888/15000 throughout.
                      Provenance
                      Encountered while arming PR #14009 (card #13983); the same block is recorded on that PR with the live numbers.
                      Generated by Claude Code
                      Metadata
                      Metadata
                      Assignees
                      No one assigned
                        Labels
                        domain:skillsfindingpm:queuepriority:p2Medium: important, M3
                        Type
                        No type
                        Projects
                        No projects
                          Milestone
                          No milestone
                          Relationships
                          None yet
                          Development
                          No branches or pull requests
                          Issue actions
                          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content
(function() {
function unstick() {
document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role="banner"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*="position: fixed"], [style*="position:sticky"]').forEach(function(el) {
if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {
el.style.position = 'static';
el.style.top = 'auto';
el.style.zIndex = 'auto';
}
});
}
unstick();
var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
[finding] "The MCP write rate limit" is not GitHub’s quota — GitHub read 14888/15000 core while MCP writes were refused, and GitHub’s reset field predicts nothing about the block · Issue #14014 · objectstack-ai/objectstack · GitHub
                          Skip to content
                          [finding] "The MCP write rate limit" is not GitHub’s quota — GitHub read 14888/15000 core while MCP writes were refused, and GitHub’s reset field predicts nothing about the block #14014
                          Open
                          Open
                          [finding] "The MCP write rate limit" is not GitHub’s quota — GitHub read 14888/15000 core while MCP writes were refused, and GitHub’s reset field predicts nothing about the block#14014
                          Labels
                          domain:skillsfindingpm:queuepriority:p2Medium: important, M3
                          Description
                          @claude
                          claude
                          bot
                          opened on Aug 31, 2026
                          Filed by the domain:devx execution PM seat (#6023) at 收班, as a platform-fact correction — one of the three categories a shift-end report is allowed to produce. ⛔ Unassigned, ungraded. The remedy is one line in a references fact table, ⛔ not prose in a skill body.
                          The correction
                          This fleet's PM seats record a recurring blocker as "the MCP write rate limit", with measured lift windows of 18–22 / 39 / 48 / ~40 min and no established upper bound. The name asserts whose quota is exhausted. Nobody had checked.
                          Measured this round, at the moment update_pull_request(draft:false) was refused with "API rate limit already exceeded for user ID 314343378":
                          GET /rate_limit
core: 14888 / 15000 (reset in 6 min)
graphql: 10000 / 10000 (reset in 59 min)

                          ⇒ ⭐ GitHub's own quota was essentially untouched in both channels. The limiter is the MCP server's own, and it is independent of GitHub's rate limits.
                          Why the distinction is load-bearing, ⛔ not pedantry
                          • It changes what "wait for it to reset" means. A reader who believes this is GitHub's quota will reach for GitHub's reset timestamp — which, as above, can read 6 minutes while the actual block persists far longer. ⇒ The measured 18–48 min windows are the MCP limiter's, and GitHub's reset field predicts nothing about them.
                          • It removes a false inference in the other direction: a healthy /rate_limit is not evidence that an MCP write will succeed, and an MCP refusal is not evidence that the GitHub token is exhausted. The two readings are unrelated, and this seat has previously reasoned as though they were the same.
                          • ⚠️It does NOT license routing around the block. The reason for that is separate and already measured: REST PATCH {draft:false} returns 200 and does not un-draft the PR. A REST "success" here yields a PR that looks armed and is not — worse than waiting. ⇒ The standing instruction stands on its own merits; this card only corrects the diagnosis, ⛔ not the response.
                          Suggested remedy
                          One line in the platform-readings fact table, distinguishing the two limiters and stating that GET /rate_limit does not describe the MCP one. ⛔ Do not add a retry mechanism, a fallback channel, or a new escape hatch — the correct response to the limiter is unchanged (interval retry, state recorded on GitHub rather than in session memory).
                          Reproduce
                          When an MCP write is refused with "API rate limit already exceeded", immediately run GET /rate_limit with the same token and compare. This round: refused at 23:41Z and again at 23:44Z, with core showing 14888/15000 throughout.
                          Provenance
                          Encountered while arming PR #14009 (card #13983); the same block is recorded on that PR with the live numbers.
                          Generated by Claude Code
                          Metadata
                          Metadata
                          Assignees
                          No one assigned
                            Labels
                            domain:skillsfindingpm:queuepriority:p2Medium: important, M3
                            Type
                            No type
                            Projects
                            No projects
                              Milestone
                              No milestone
                              Relationships
                              None yet
                              Development
                              No branches or pull requests
                              Issue actions
                              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site
(function() {
var enabled = true;
function applyDarkMode() {
if (!enabled) return;
// Create style element if it doesn't exist
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (!style) {
style = document.createElement('style');
style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';
document.head.appendChild(style);
}
// Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video
style.textContent = '
/* Invert everything except media */
html {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #1a1a2e !important;
}
/* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */
img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*="background-image"] {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
}
/* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */
.no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,
[data-theme="light"], [data-theme="light"],
.ace_editor, .ace_editor *,
.CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,
.monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,
.markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,
.highlight, .highlight *,
pre code, pre code * {
filter: none !important;
}
/* Fix common UI elements */
.modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #2d2d44 !important;
border-color: #444 !important;
}
/* Scrollbars */
::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }
/* Selection */
::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
';
}
function removeDarkMode() {
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (style) style.remove();
}
// Toggle with Alt+Shift+D
document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {
if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {
e.preventDefault();
enabled = !enabled;
if (enabled) {
applyDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');
} else {
removeDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');
}
}
});
// Apply on load
applyDarkMode();
// Re-apply on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {
applyDarkMode();
}
});
observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();
[finding] "The MCP write rate limit" is not GitHub’s quota — GitHub read 14888/15000 core while MCP writes were refused, and GitHub’s reset field predicts nothing about the block · Issue #14014 · objectstack-ai/objectstack · GitHub
                              Skip to content
                              [finding] "The MCP write rate limit" is not GitHub’s quota — GitHub read 14888/15000 core while MCP writes were refused, and GitHub’s reset field predicts nothing about the block #14014
                              Open
                              Open
                              [finding] "The MCP write rate limit" is not GitHub’s quota — GitHub read 14888/15000 core while MCP writes were refused, and GitHub’s reset field predicts nothing about the block#14014
                              Labels
                              domain:skillsfindingpm:queuepriority:p2Medium: important, M3
                              Description
                              @claude
                              claude
                              bot
                              opened on Aug 31, 2026
                              Filed by the domain:devx execution PM seat (#6023) at 收班, as a platform-fact correction — one of the three categories a shift-end report is allowed to produce. ⛔ Unassigned, ungraded. The remedy is one line in a references fact table, ⛔ not prose in a skill body.
                              The correction
                              This fleet's PM seats record a recurring blocker as "the MCP write rate limit", with measured lift windows of 18–22 / 39 / 48 / ~40 min and no established upper bound. The name asserts whose quota is exhausted. Nobody had checked.
                              Measured this round, at the moment update_pull_request(draft:false) was refused with "API rate limit already exceeded for user ID 314343378":
                              GET /rate_limit
core: 14888 / 15000 (reset in 6 min)
graphql: 10000 / 10000 (reset in 59 min)

                              ⇒ ⭐ GitHub's own quota was essentially untouched in both channels. The limiter is the MCP server's own, and it is independent of GitHub's rate limits.
                              Why the distinction is load-bearing, ⛔ not pedantry
                              • It changes what "wait for it to reset" means. A reader who believes this is GitHub's quota will reach for GitHub's reset timestamp — which, as above, can read 6 minutes while the actual block persists far longer. ⇒ The measured 18–48 min windows are the MCP limiter's, and GitHub's reset field predicts nothing about them.
                              • It removes a false inference in the other direction: a healthy /rate_limit is not evidence that an MCP write will succeed, and an MCP refusal is not evidence that the GitHub token is exhausted. The two readings are unrelated, and this seat has previously reasoned as though they were the same.
                              • ⚠️It does NOT license routing around the block. The reason for that is separate and already measured: REST PATCH {draft:false} returns 200 and does not un-draft the PR. A REST "success" here yields a PR that looks armed and is not — worse than waiting. ⇒ The standing instruction stands on its own merits; this card only corrects the diagnosis, ⛔ not the response.
                              Suggested remedy
                              One line in the platform-readings fact table, distinguishing the two limiters and stating that GET /rate_limit does not describe the MCP one. ⛔ Do not add a retry mechanism, a fallback channel, or a new escape hatch — the correct response to the limiter is unchanged (interval retry, state recorded on GitHub rather than in session memory).
                              Reproduce
                              When an MCP write is refused with "API rate limit already exceeded", immediately run GET /rate_limit with the same token and compare. This round: refused at 23:41Z and again at 23:44Z, with core showing 14888/15000 throughout.
                              Provenance
                              Encountered while arming PR #14009 (card #13983); the same block is recorded on that PR with the live numbers.
                              Generated by Claude Code
                              Metadata
                              Metadata
                              Assignees
                              No one assigned
                                Labels
                                domain:skillsfindingpm:queuepriority:p2Medium: important, M3
                                Type
                                No type
                                Projects
                                No projects
                                  Milestone
                                  No milestone
                                  Relationships
                                  None yet
                                  Development
                                  No branches or pull requests
                                  Issue actions