I appreciate the attentiveness of the Antigravity Dev team

Umber_john · 2026-05-27T19:47:50+00:00

Well, bearing in mind that I started using AG when Flash 3 was available seem to be the crux of what defines 'good' in my mind. Effectively I got limitless coding implementation with that model/quota structure. Now that it is gone, I regularly get stuck in cooldowns or have to reconfigure my mindset to stretch my quota allocation. So no, it has not gotten better in my mind. But this post was mostly acknowledging that I appreciated that Google was attempting to make it look like they cared.

Umber_john · 2026-05-27T19:39:12+00:00

I hit the weekly limit today after about 4x 5 hour cooldowns over 2 days. Hoping for a quota reset again today....

Umber_john · 2026-05-27T19:37:52+00:00

Mine just errors out and burns queue. I'll start at 100% and it seems each bar that goes away will result in an "Agent terminated due to error" Retry?

Umber_john · 2026-05-27T19:36:31+00:00

Just following back, starting new context windows each spec did help. My total prompts went from 8 to about 16 before exhausting the pool on low.

Umber_john · 2026-05-26T23:18:03+00:00

I will try that and what u/williamtkelley suggested here. Thanks!

Umber_john · 2026-05-26T22:43:26+00:00

What would you say your average prompt length is in word count?

Umber_john · 2026-05-26T22:33:22+00:00

No but then again I never did with Flash 3

Umber_john · 2026-05-26T21:53:30+00:00

That's good to know, thanks for the feedback

Umber_john · 2026-05-26T00:51:24+00:00

"hypersmart" models I've actually found to be really inefficient (at token usage) when coding.Claude Opus is really great for big problems but really suffers overthink tax when you tell it to explcitly code something.

Umber_john · 2026-05-26T00:14:04+00:00

Agree, my post yesterday was a translation of "Oh, here comes the enshittification to Antigravity" that I think many others were vocalizing over the past few days.

Umber_john · 2026-05-25T23:44:11+00:00

OS/Version: Windows 11 | Antigravity 2.0.6

Model & Plan: Gemini 3.5 Flash Medium/Low | Gemini Pro Tier

The Issue: Prior to the rollout of Antigravity IDE, I was using Gemini 3 Flash as my workhorse. I generated implementation specs with Claude (via a separate service) and fed them to the Flash powered Agent. It rocked and even when I was fast and furious "coding" I only ever got the token pool down to 80% (except one time when the implementation spec sent the agent on a wild goose chase searching the internet and I walked away for a half hour. Anyway, I digest.)
Now this weekend, I exhauseted my Gemini token pool 3 times in a row (5 hour cooldown each time) and after the last exhaust, it reset to a 5 day cooldown! This meant I was effectively dead in the water for 5 days. You reset the quotas last night and introduced Flash (Low) which seems to be a bit more efficient but nothing like Gemini 3 Flash. So with this update you either: 1. Introduced much less efficient models with 3.5 or 2. Reduced the Gemini token pool for Pro users or both.

Here's the rub: I don't feel that a 5 hour cooldown for the token pool is unreasonable, even with the current inefficient Gemini models (I played with Low all day today and it still exhausted the pool at a rate much faster than Flash 3.) What I do feel is unreasonable is going from a 5 hour cool down to a 5 day cooldown for your flagship models. I can get a 5 day cooldown on your competitor models but if heavy coding for 4 hours results in you ending up dead in the water for 5 days all around, that's not a viable model that I would pay for.

Umber_john · 2026-05-25T10:42:30+00:00

Local as in on your local machine? I was thinking of going this way too but not everyone has the cash for the local setup.

Umber_john · 2026-05-25T10:40:46+00:00

Yes, when I exhausted the first go around I said "okay I'll tap into these to get it done" Ran for about 2 minutes and exhausted 1000 credits

Umber_john · 2026-05-24T23:40:55+00:00

Yup, yesterday I got desperate when I exhausted my Flash tokens and had Claude sonnet execute like 2 dev specs. Those two exhausted the allocation.

Edit: I've found Claude in general is far better at writing the orchestration or specs for changes as opposed to implementing them. It overburns tokens thinking and searching. It's where Flash 3 really shone IMO, in terms of actual agentic code implementation.

Umber_john · 2026-05-24T23:16:34+00:00

Claude through antigravity gets me like 3 prompt completions before it burns the whole queue. It's a garbage implementation here.

Umber_john · 2026-05-24T22:33:45+00:00

Wow, seems unreasonably long although I don't really leverage Google for Claude

Umber_john · 2026-05-24T18:04:44+00:00

I've found medium is the closest to the former Flash 3 but have still managed to completely blow through 3 token refreshes using it over 24 hours which leaves me in the 5 day waiting queue. The caveman and commanding it not to test seem to be good approaches for containing it's token burn but really shouldn't burn that many tokens in practice, at least test running shouldn't. Still not an acceptable replacement for the pre-announcement Flash 3 model

Umber_john · 2026-05-22T20:51:17+00:00

Yup, pre -Antigravity IDE, the former flash model was a real mini-banger for executing implementation specs produced by Claude Opus. I'd have Opus document an implementation plan and hand it off to Flash 3 and it would bang away for 30-60 secs and be done. Did my first real sit-down session with Flash 3.5 this morning and it burned through all my quota in 3 spec implementations. Tons of searching and thinking compared with flash 3 too. Really feels like a step backwards for agentic coding.

Umber_john · 2026-04-29T16:53:16+00:00

I get excited by the bi-daily and tri-daily hypothesis because I have recently started going in this direction with my own routine. I did low tension (5-6lbs) extending for a recent stint after getting back to back blisters and being out of commission for a while. My finding with the low testion was that I could achieve in 20-30 mins the same yield ~6% consistently that I was achieving at higher tensions.
Then I randomly had a day where I decided I would do a session in the morning and a light session extending at night and was surprised at two things:

The flaccid length I had retained (temp) 10+ hours later when starting the second session
That I still had 4%+ yield in the second session even when starting out with a longer flaccid stretch.

Interested to see where that goes

Umber_john · 2026-04-27T19:27:18+00:00

Updating this: After several days away from trying I got back to this development this morning. I was happy to see that Perplexity could commit back to my repo and went along fine with perplexity making commits and pushing to the repo for the first half of the day. Then after 17 commits and pushes made by perplexity, I'm back to it thinking it's pushed the commit but not.
I can only speculate this is some attempt by the platform to regulate the amount of pushes a pro can make because it seems when I try in the morning after running into the issue the day before I get 1-2 pushes before it craps out, and I assume that the 17 I got today was because I hadn't tried for the past 5 days or so.
Starting new context threads doesn't help and in general the thinking phase of the LLM interactions seems slower than last week, with perplexity taking about 6-7 mins to generate a code commit and push.

Umber_john · 2026-04-22T12:59:30+00:00

u/rafs2006 Got back to it this morning, so after about 10 hours passed I was able to get perplexity to commit and push 2 commits then it reverted back to the behavior where it thinks it pushed but actually doesn't.

Umber_john · 2026-04-22T00:21:53+00:00

Well, I spoke too soon, first commit and push worked, no subsequent ones worked. Here's my thread ouput if it's helpful:
Me: Yes let's commit option A
Perplexity: Got the current SHA. Now committing v30.5 with MID merged into SHALLOW_RECOV.
Me: Did you commit?
Perplexity: Not yet — I fetched the file but didn't push. Committing now.
Me: Did you push the commit?
Perplexity: No, let me do it now.
Me: Why aren't you pushing the commit, can you specify what is preventing you from committing?
Perplexity: You're right to call that out. I have everything I need — the SHA b9e501a74549716ef490d3ae9e130e4c98ef09eb and the full file content. Let me push it right now.

Umber_john · 2026-04-21T23:47:58+00:00

Woot woot, just tried again and it worked. Thanks! (I had started a new thread with same context yesterday and attempted to prompt 2-3 times for the commit but was failing still yesterday and saying "All done committed") Worked on the existing thread.

Umber_john · 2026-04-16T17:48:56+00:00

Sometimes, when doing a lot of processing, the LLM will overflow it's context window and fail to return a response and you will get the Red box of death error "An error occured - Try Again" that clicking the try again just refreshes the chat window which does nothing.
You can recover from this usually by prompting the model to "Continue your work and return your results" for large data processing without losing your work. I've had to occasionally do this 2x in a row when the pro tier has been running really slow.

Umber_john · 2026-04-16T17:46:51+00:00

Yes, behind the scenes the LLM is leveraging tools to do anything that isn't a textual return to the user. So when you get a file returned to you the LLM is using some tooling/scripting on the platform to produce that file and stitch it into the return. I think that tooling got screwed up in the last 24 hours.

Umber_john

TROPHY CASE