You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
What version of the Codex App are you using (From “About Codex” dialog)?
Version 26.901.51231
What subscription do you have?
Plus
What platform is your computer?
Microsoft Windows NT 10.0.26200.0 x64
What issue are you seeing?
I am writing to share feedback regarding the usage limits for the new GPT-6 Astra model. Currently, the rate limit is consumed far too quickly, making it nearly impossible to complete even minor tasks within a single session.
For context, I started a fresh session with 100% capacity at 2:51 PM IST, and by 3:11 PM IST, I had already hit the limit. A 20-minute window is simply too short to accomplish meaningful work. Having to constantly pause and wait for the next session creates a highly disruptive and frustrating workflow.
I strongly recommend reviewing the current limits for GPT-6 Astra, as these brief sessions significantly diminish the model's practical utility.
What steps can reproduce the bug?
Open a fresh session with the GPT-6 Astra model showing 100% availability (Started at 2:51 PM IST).
Begin working on standard development/text tasks.
Observe that the session limit is completely exhausted within 20 minutes (Session went out of limit at 3:11 PM IST).
The rapid consumption happens even during normal, small-scale usage without massive context inputs or heavy code generation.
What is the expected behavior?
The GPT-6 Astra session limit should be structured to allow for reasonable, continuous workflow chunks. A single session should last long enough to complete at least minor-to-moderate tasks (ideally extending beyond a 20-minute window) without abruptly cutting off and forcing the user into long wait times for the next session.
Additional information
This issue heavily impacts productivity. Having to repeatedly pause work and wait for the cooldown/refresh period creates a disjointed experience and introduces unnecessary stress when trying to maintain a steady workflow.
I’m also seeing unexpectedly rapid usage consumption on Windows with Astra Light / low reasoning. I’m on the ChatGPT Business plan.
Environment:
Subscription: ChatGPT Business
Model: gpt-6-astra
Reasoning effort: low (Light)
Service tier: default
Platform: Windows
Execution: Local
Codex App version: 26.901.51231
Approval policy: never
Sandbox: full/elevated access
Memories: disabled
Observed behavior:
Usage before: ~98% remaining
Number of prompts/tasks: 2
Usage after: 0% remaining
The tasks were ordinary local repository work: auditing one local repository and then working with another local repository. They were not unusually long-running workloads and did not involve intentionally huge context inputs.
I can reproduce what appears to be the same issue, on the exact same Codex Desktop version.
Environment:
ChatGPT Plus
Windows
Codex Desktop 26.901.51231
GPT-6 Astra
Reasoning: Very High
A single task lasting 11m31s consumed:
5-hour allowance: 100% -> 0%
Weekly allowance: 100% -> 83%
The task involved normal code changes/commands, edited 7 files, and had one automatic context compaction. No other Codex or ChatGPT Work tasks were running.
I submitted diagnostic feedback from the affected session.
I’m seeing the same problem, and the consumption looks clearly disproportionate.
During one ongoing Codex task using GPT-6 Astra, I used a usage reset in the middle of the task. The reset brought my allowance back to 100%. I then continued the exact same task, and before the task was even finished, my remaining allowance had already fallen below 70%.
So more than 30% of a freshly reset allowance was consumed by continuing a single unfinished task. This was not a new project or a series of separate heavy jobs; it was one continuous task.
I understand Astra may have a higher compute/quota cost than other models, but this rate of consumption does not feel reasonable or predictable for normal development work. Please investigate whether there is an issue with Astra usage accounting, context/reprocessing overhead, sub-agent/tool activity, retries, or the quota weighting applied to the model.
It would also be very helpful to expose clearer per-task/per-turn usage information so users can see what is actually consuming the allowance.
I’ve noticed similar Astra usage behavior in my own engineering tasks.
Instead of treating this only as a quota problem, I started looking at how the workload was being assigned to the model. A significant part of the context and execution did not actually require premium reasoning.
I’ve been experimenting with splitting the workflow across specialized agents/models:
Router → Context Scout → Premium Reasoning → Implementer → Reviewer
Repository discovery and context filtering are handled before the expensive reasoning step. Routine implementation, tests, documentation and Git operations can then be delegated to smaller models, while Astra is reserved for architecture, security and difficult reasoning.
This doesn’t change Astra’s underlying quota consumption, but it can reduce how much unnecessary work is sent to it.
I turned the experiment into a small open-source GitHub template: https://github.com/robert-lukowski/token-gourmand
Still early, and I’m planning to benchmark the actual reduction rather than assume the savings.
Plus subscriber here. My weekly Astra allowance was exhausted after roughly five image-generation / Work tasks. The issue is no longer just that Astra consumes quota faster than Sol — the available amount is too small to complete normal Work workflows reliably.
I would strongly prefer either a meaningful increase to the Plus Astra allowance or an intermediate plan between Plus and Pro (for example, a 2.5x–5x usage tier). The current jump from Plus to Pro is too large for users who need more Work/Astra capacity but do not need the highest tier.
More broadly, I think the product would be easier to use if Astra's quota consumption were made more predictable and if long-running Work tasks could complete without being interrupted by a hard usage-limit screen mid-flow.
I switched from Max Anthropic Plan thinking I could get more usage from a comparable frontier model as Fable 5.1 (GPT 6-Astra) and I got the expensive 5x Pro Use membership and GPT 6 Astra created goals that it continued to work towards for 3-4 hours consuming 65-70% of my weekly limit from one session. Way to lose a new user.
So nearly 250 purchased credits were consumed in roughly 23 minutes.
This is strikingly close to the ~20-minute session-length behavior reported in this issue.
I have not found evidence so far that this specific rollout spawned a large subagent swarm, so I cannot explain the burn that way. The session does contain substantial long-context/compaction activity, but I am not assuming that explains billing without a proper breakdown.
The practical problem is that the current Analytics UI shows aggregate credit spend but does not provide enough task/turn-level attribution to determine what actually drove the rapid Astra consumption. OpenAI Support has told me they cannot provide per-task server-side ledger attribution by session/thread.
It would be very useful for this issue if OpenAI could clarify whether this rate is expected for Astra / High and expose the metering components responsible for it.
Activity
github-actions commentedon Sep 6, 2026
Potential duplicates detected. Please review them and close your issue if it is a duplicate.
Powered by Codex Action
Suh0161 commentedon Sep 6, 2026
I’m also seeing unexpectedly rapid usage consumption on Windows with Astra Light / low reasoning. I’m on the ChatGPT Business plan.
Environment:
gpt-6-astralow(Light)default26.901.51231neverObserved behavior:
The tasks were ordinary local repository work: auditing one local repository and then working with another local repository. They were not unusually long-running workloads and did not involve intentionally huge context inputs.
Relevant sanitized config:
alexf3791 commentedon Sep 7, 2026
I can reproduce what appears to be the same issue, on the exact same Codex Desktop version.
Environment:
A single task lasting 11m31s consumed:
The task involved normal code changes/commands, edited 7 files, and had one automatic context compaction. No other Codex or ChatGPT Work tasks were running.
I submitted diagnostic feedback from the affected session.
Feedback ID:
01a0781e-c5b3-7110-bf8a-2e564861a24b
mshata96 commentedon Sep 8, 2026
I’m seeing the same problem, and the consumption looks clearly disproportionate.
During one ongoing Codex task using GPT-6 Astra, I used a usage reset in the middle of the task. The reset brought my allowance back to 100%. I then continued the exact same task, and before the task was even finished, my remaining allowance had already fallen below 70%.
So more than 30% of a freshly reset allowance was consumed by continuing a single unfinished task. This was not a new project or a series of separate heavy jobs; it was one continuous task.
I understand Astra may have a higher compute/quota cost than other models, but this rate of consumption does not feel reasonable or predictable for normal development work. Please investigate whether there is an issue with Astra usage accounting, context/reprocessing overhead, sub-agent/tool activity, retries, or the quota weighting applied to the model.
It would also be very helpful to expose clearer per-task/per-turn usage information so users can see what is actually consuming the allowance.
robert-lukowski commentedon Sep 8, 2026
I’ve noticed similar Astra usage behavior in my own engineering tasks.
Instead of treating this only as a quota problem, I started looking at how the workload was being assigned to the model. A significant part of the context and execution did not actually require premium reasoning.
I’ve been experimenting with splitting the workflow across specialized agents/models:
Router → Context Scout → Premium Reasoning → Implementer → Reviewer
Repository discovery and context filtering are handled before the expensive reasoning step. Routine implementation, tests, documentation and Git operations can then be delegated to smaller models, while Astra is reserved for architecture, security and difficult reasoning.
This doesn’t change Astra’s underlying quota consumption, but it can reduce how much unnecessary work is sent to it.
I turned the experiment into a small open-source GitHub template:
https://github.com/robert-lukowski/token-gourmand
Still early, and I’m planning to benchmark the actual reduction rather than assume the savings.
gus6443-beep commentedon Sep 11, 2026
Plus subscriber here. My weekly Astra allowance was exhausted after roughly five image-generation / Work tasks. The issue is no longer just that Astra consumes quota faster than Sol — the available amount is too small to complete normal Work workflows reliably.
I would strongly prefer either a meaningful increase to the Plus Astra allowance or an intermediate plan between Plus and Pro (for example, a 2.5x–5x usage tier). The current jump from Plus to Pro is too large for users who need more Work/Astra capacity but do not need the highest tier.
More broadly, I think the product would be easier to use if Astra's quota consumption were made more predictable and if long-running Work tasks could complete without being interrupted by a hard usage-limit screen mid-flow.
bilalhussainx commentedon Sep 11, 2026
I switched from Max Anthropic Plan thinking I could get more usage from a comparable frontier model as Fable 5.1 (GPT 6-Astra) and I got the expensive 5x Pro Use membership and GPT 6 Astra created goals that it continued to work towards for 3-4 hours consuming 65-70% of my weekly limit from one session. Way to lose a new user.
D4ttara commentedon Sep 15, 2026
I have a closely matching Astra data point from ChatGPT Plus with local Codex credit-balance telemetry.
On Sep 9:
So nearly 250 purchased credits were consumed in roughly 23 minutes.
This is strikingly close to the ~20-minute session-length behavior reported in this issue.
I have not found evidence so far that this specific rollout spawned a large subagent swarm, so I cannot explain the burn that way. The session does contain substantial long-context/compaction activity, but I am not assuming that explains billing without a proper breakdown.
The practical problem is that the current Analytics UI shows aggregate credit spend but does not provide enough task/turn-level attribution to determine what actually drove the rapid Astra consumption. OpenAI Support has told me they cannot provide per-task server-side ledger attribution by session/thread.
It would be very useful for this issue if OpenAI could clarify whether this rate is expected for Astra / High and expose the metering components responsible for it.
f1ames0ff commentedon Oct 10, 2026
GPT pricing is an absolutely unpredictable shit. Use DeepSeek instead.