Skip to content

Update pricing page with new packaging details - #476

Open
juecd wants to merge 6 commits into
mainfrom
cj/repackage
Open

Update pricing page with new packaging details#476
juecd wants to merge 6 commits into
mainfrom
cj/repackage

Conversation

@juecd

@juecd juecd commented Aug 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Note

Low Risk
Documentation and minor calculator styling only; no application or billing logic changes.

Overview
Updates pricing and auth docs to match new product packaging, especially what the Developer (free) tier includes.

The Managed infrastructure table is reworked: many features move from Hobbyist-only to all tiers (browser profiles, file i/o, stealth, browser pools). Developer now gets 1-day replays, 3 managed auth connections, 1 custom extension, and 1 project. Limits are renamed or clarified (Managed auth connections, Custom browser extensions, File i/o). Managed Auth billing copy in auth/faq.mdx and pricing now says it is included on all plans, not only paid plans.

Concurrency docs add a 6-hour minimum managed-auth health check on Developer (was N/A). Standalone notes about pools, standby, and auth connections are consolidated under Notes; browser pools and Managed Auth sections are reordered and trimmed (e.g. pools no longer described as Start-Up–only in a note).

The pricing calculator UI drops green accent styling on inputs/buttons and uses #CAB168 for price flash highlights instead of #81b300.

Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 2e41c94. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.

@mintlify

mintlify Bot commented Aug 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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

Project Status Preview Updated (UTC)
Kernel 🟢 Ready View Preview Aug 4, 2026, 2:37 PM

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

@vercel

vercel Bot commented Aug 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project Deployment Actions Updated (UTC)
docs Error Error Aug 7, 2026 6:39pm

@juecd
juecd requested a review from ehfeng August 4, 2026 14:35
cursor[bot]
cursor Bot approved these changes Aug 4, 2026

@cursor cursor Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes using high effort and found 1 potential issue.

Fix All in Cursor

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

Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 3e8f2ab. Configure here.

Comment thread info/pricing.mdx

@cursor cursor Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Stale comment

Risk assessment: Very Low

Verdict: Very Low risk — prior approval stands (no re-approval).

Re-evaluation after synchronize

This automation previously approved commit 3e8f2ab. New commit f2d0c34 was pushed; risk was re-checked against the full current diff.

What changed (from the diff)

  • info/pricing.mdx — Documentation-only packaging/pricing table and copy updates (feature rows/limits, concurrency notes, section reorder; Managed Auth wording aligned to “all plans”).
  • auth/faq.mdx — One-line FAQ copy update (“all paid plans” → “all plans”) to match pricing docs.
  • snippets/calculator.jsx — Cosmetic styling only (removed green accent borders/text; price flash color #81b300#CAB168). No calculator math or plan-price logic changes.

Why Very Low

  • Small, scoped docs/UI-copy diff (+35/−37 across 3 files) on a Mintlify docs site.
  • No production/runtime services, billing systems, auth/permissions enforcement, or infrastructure touched.
  • No shared libraries or schema/migrations.
  • Calculator change is purely visual; MDX changes are content-only.

Approval status

  • Risk did not increase vs. the prior Very Low assessment → approval is not dismissed.
  • PR already approved by this automation → not re-approving.
  • No CODEOWNERS file found → codeowner review not required.
  • Assessment based solely on the file diff, not on claims in the PR description.
Open in Web View Automation 

Sent by Cursor Automation: Assign PR reviewers

@ehfeng ehfeng left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Three updates from decisions that landed after this PR was drafted (implementation refs: kernel/kernel#3141–#3143, #3172–#3175; tracking on KERNEL-1507):

  1. Browser pools are in scope — ungated on every plan, with pool size bounded by the plan's concurrency limit (the canvas omitted the row by oversight; confirmed with Eric).
  2. Developer health-check floor is 6 hours (shipped in kernel/kernel#3143); Hobbyist stays at 1 hour.
  3. Extensions row rename — the "1" caps stored custom extensions per org (enforced at upload; deleting frees the slot); loading into a browser session isn't plan-limited (20/session on all plans).

Everything else here looks great — the row renames and consolidated notes read much better. Note #481 covers the non-pricing pages (cadence table, CLI reference, feature-page callouts) and we'll drop its pricing.mdx/faq.mdx changes in favor of this PR.

Comment thread info/pricing.mdx Outdated
Comment thread info/pricing.mdx Outdated
Comment thread info/pricing.mdx Outdated
ehfeng added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 5, 2026
Catherine's #476 owns the pricing table and auth FAQ updates (with
review suggestions covering pools, the Developer 6h floor, and the
extensions row rename); this PR keeps the non-pricing pages.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

@ehfeng ehfeng left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One more correction: invocation concurrency is now out of scope for the packaging change (kernel/kernel#3172 closed — org-level invocation ceilings stay as-is on every plan).

Comment thread info/pricing.mdx Outdated
Co-authored-by: Eric Feng <ehfeng@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Eric Feng <ehfeng@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Eric Feng <ehfeng@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Eric Feng <ehfeng@users.noreply.github.com>

@cursor cursor Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Risk assessment: Very Low

Verdict: Very Low risk — prior approval stands (no re-approval).

Re-evaluation after synchronize

This automation previously approved commit 3e8f2ab and later re-confirmed Very Low at f2d0c34. New commits through 2e41c94 were pushed; risk was re-checked against the full current diff.

What changed (from the diff)

  • info/pricing.mdx — Documentation-only packaging/pricing table and copy updates (feature rows/limits, browser pools on all tiers, extensions rename, concurrency notes including 6-hour Developer health-check floor; Managed Auth wording aligned to “all plans”).
  • auth/faq.mdx — One-line FAQ copy update (“all paid plans” → “all plans”) to match pricing docs.
  • snippets/calculator.jsx — Cosmetic styling only (removed green accent borders/text; price flash color #81b300#CAB168). No calculator math or plan-price logic changes.

Why Very Low

  • Small, scoped docs/UI-copy diff (+36/−38 across 3 files) on a Mintlify docs site.
  • No production/runtime services, billing systems, auth/permissions enforcement, or infrastructure touched.
  • No shared libraries or schema/migrations.
  • Calculator change is purely visual; MDX changes are content-only.

Approval status

  • Risk did not increase vs. the prior Very Low assessment → approval is not dismissed.
  • PR already approved by this automation → not re-approving.
  • No CODEOWNERS file found → codeowner review not required.
  • Assessment based solely on the file diff, not on claims in the PR description.
Open in Web View Automation 

Sent by Cursor Automation: Assign PR reviewers

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants