Document organization and project spending caps

[dcruzeneil2]

summary

• add a dedicated spending caps guide under info
• compare organization and project cap accounting, scope, and use cases
• document the 80% warning, 100% pause, monthly reset, layered behavior, and enforcement caveats
• use native cards, comparison tables, and step flows instead of a dashboard screenshot that can drift
• link the guide from pricing, projects, and the docs navigation

testing

• mint validate
• mint broken-links
• rendered /info/spending-caps locally in chromium
• git diff --check main...HEAD

---

Note

Low Risk
Documentation-only changes with no product code or API behavior modifications.

Overview
Adds a new Spending Caps guide under Info and wires it into the docs nav, Pricing & Limits, and Projects.

The guide explains organization vs project caps (out-of-pocket after credits vs per-project gross usage), how to set limits on the billing dashboard, and monthly behavior: 80% warning email, 100% pause of new browser sessions and app invocations (403), UTC month reset, and layered org/project enforcement. It also covers admission-guardrail caveats, preview availability, recommended setups, and how caps differ from concurrency limits—using Mintlify cards, steps, and tabs instead of dashboard screenshots.

Pricing and Projects each gain a short pointer so readers can find cost guardrails without conflating them with simultaneous-browser limits.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit ba79803. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[mintlify]

Preview deployment for your docs. Learn more about Mintlify Previews.

Project	Status	Preview	Updated (UTC)
Kernel	🟢 Ready	View Preview	Aug 27, 2026, 3:31 PM

💡 Tip: Enable Workflows to automatically generate PRs for you.

[cursor]

Stale comment

Risk assessment: Very Low (re-evaluated after push)

Previous approval remains in effect. This run does not re-approve.

Verified from the current diff only (4 files, +151 / −0 vs main; 1-line change since the prior approval on ab83382).

What changed (full PR)

• New Mintlify page info/spending-caps.mdx (product docs for organization vs project spending caps)
• One nav entry in docs.json (info/spending-caps)
• Two cross-links from existing docs (info/pricing.mdx, info/projects.mdx)

What changed since last approval

• In info/spending-caps.mdx, the limited-preview note now uses a mailto:support@kernel.sh link instead of /info/support. Still documentation-only.

Why this remains Very Low

• Documentation-only on a docs site; no application logic, APIs, auth, billing enforcement, CI, or infrastructure
• docs.json change is a sidebar path addition, not runtime/infra config
• No CODEOWNERS file and branch ruleset has require_code_owner_review: false
• Risk did not increase, so the existing approval is not dismissed

No production codepaths or shared systems are modified.

  

_{Sent by Cursor Automation: Assign PR reviewers}

[cursor]

Stale comment

Risk assessment: Very Low (re-evaluated after push)

Previous approval remains in effect. This run does not re-approve.

Verified from the current diff only (4 files, +156 / −0 vs main).

What changed (full PR)

• New Mintlify page info/spending-caps.mdx (product docs for organization vs project spending caps)
• One nav entry in docs.json (info/spending-caps)
• Two cross-links from existing docs (info/pricing.mdx, info/projects.mdx)

What changed since last approval (ab83382 → eb4fc50)

• Availability note in info/spending-caps.mdx now splits organization vs project preview access and uses a mailto:support@kernel.sh request link. Still documentation-only.

Why this remains Very Low

• Documentation-only on a docs site; no application logic, APIs, auth, billing enforcement, CI, or infrastructure
• docs.json change is a sidebar path addition, not runtime/infra config
• No CODEOWNERS file in the repo
• Risk did not increase, so the existing approval is not dismissed

No production codepaths or shared systems are modified.

  

_{Sent by Cursor Automation: Assign PR reviewers}

[cursor]

Stale comment

Risk assessment: Very Low (re-evaluated after push)

Previous approval remains in effect. This run does not re-approve.

Verified from the current diff only (4 files, +177 / −0 vs main).

What changed (full PR)

• New Mintlify page info/spending-caps.mdx (product docs for organization vs project spending caps)
• One nav entry in docs.json (info/spending-caps)
• Two cross-links from existing docs (info/pricing.mdx, info/projects.mdx)

What changed since last assessment (eb4fc50 → b639f53)

• Organization and project cards in info/spending-caps.mdx now use inline SVGs instead of named icon strings. Cosmetic docs markup only.

Why this remains Very Low

• Documentation-only on a docs site; no application logic, APIs, auth, billing enforcement, CI, or infrastructure
• docs.json change is a sidebar path addition, not runtime/infra config
• No CODEOWNERS file in the repo
• Risk did not increase, so the existing approval is not dismissed

No production codepaths or shared systems are modified.

  

_{Sent by Cursor Automation: Assign PR reviewers}

[cursor]

Stale comment

Risk assessment: Very Low (re-evaluated after push)

Previous approval remains in effect. This run does not re-approve.

Verified from the current diff only (4 files, +177 / −0 vs main).

What changed (full PR)

• New Mintlify page info/spending-caps.mdx (product docs for organization vs project spending caps)
• One nav entry in docs.json (info/spending-caps)
• Two cross-links from existing docs (info/pricing.mdx, info/projects.mdx)

What changed since last assessment (b639f53 → ba79803)

• Merge of main into the branch (#523 changelog, #518 bug bounty docs). The PR's own four files are unchanged. Still documentation-only.

Why this remains Very Low

• Documentation-only on a docs site; no application logic, APIs, auth, billing enforcement, CI, or infrastructure
• docs.json change is a sidebar path addition, not runtime/infra config
• No CODEOWNERS file; branch ruleset has require_code_owner_review: false
• Risk did not increase, so the existing approval is not dismissed

No production codepaths or shared systems are modified.

  

_{Sent by Cursor Automation: Assign PR reviewers}

[cursor]

Risk assessment: Very Low

Previous approval remains in effect. This run does not re-approve.

Verified from the current diff only (4 files, +177 / −0 vs main; HEAD ba79803).

What changed

• New Mintlify page info/spending-caps.mdx (product docs for organization vs project spending caps)
• One nav entry in docs.json (info/spending-caps)
• Two cross-links from existing docs (info/pricing.mdx, info/projects.mdx)

Why this is Very Low

• Documentation-only on a docs site; no application logic, APIs, auth, billing enforcement, CI, or infrastructure
• docs.json change is a sidebar path addition, not runtime/infra config
• No CODEOWNERS file; branch ruleset has require_code_owner_review: false
• Diff is unchanged since the last assessment of this SHA, so risk did not increase and the existing approval is not dismissed

No production codepaths or shared systems are modified.

  

_{Sent by Cursor Automation: Assign PR reviewers}

[cursor]

Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes using default effort and found 2 potential issues.

^{❌ Bugbot Autofix is OFF. To automatically fix reported issues with cloud agents, enable autofix in the Cursor dashboard.}

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit ba79803. Configure here.}

[cursor]

Pricing intro duplicates cap behavior

Medium Severity

The pricing intro restates the 80% warning, 100% pause, and organization-versus-project scopes already documented on Spending Caps. Cross-page mentions work as a short pointer plus a link so those thresholds do not drift in two places.

 

^{Triggered by learned rule: Single source of truth — no deep content duplication across pages}

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit ba79803. Configure here.}

[cursor]

Description lists cap scope variants

Low Severity

The frontmatter description enumerates organization, project, and combined scopes rather than using one encompassing term. Those variants already belong in the comparison section, so the description can stay high-level.

 

^{Triggered by learned rule: Do not mention specific SDK or package version numbers in guides}

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit ba79803. Configure here.}