[WRONG BRANCH] Fix: avoid duplicate Antigravity Gemini effort encoding (use suffix-only for Gemini)

[luvs01]

Motivation

• The Antigravity resolver was returning both a suffixed Gemini wire-model ID and a thinkingLevel, which caused the Google CCA envelope to carry both a suffixed model and a thinkingConfig, contradicting the documented suffix-only contract for Gemini efforts.
• This produced a compatibility regression for authenticated/local Antigravity Gemini requests where upstream can reject or mis-handle explicit-effort requests.
• The intent is to preserve existing behavior for Claude models (which use thinkingConfig) while ensuring Gemini effort is represented only via the wire-model suffix.

Description

• Change resolveAntigravityEffortWireModel in src/providers/antigravity-models.ts so mapped Gemini base models return only the mapped wireModelId for explicit efforts and do not return a thinkingLevel.
• Clarified the resolver precedence comment to explicitly state that mapped Gemini efforts encode via the wire-model suffix and do not produce thinkingConfig.
• Updated expectations in tests/google-antigravity-wire.test.ts to assert that Gemini effort cases route to suffixed wire IDs and do not include request.generationConfig.thinkingConfig.

Testing

• Ran the targeted tests with bun test tests/google-antigravity-wire.test.ts and they all passed (36 tests, 0 failures).
• Ran bun run typecheck and bun run privacy:scan which completed successfully.
• Attempted the full suite with bun run test; the modified tests passed, but the full run encountered a pre-existing unrelated timeout in a provider management test and therefore did not complete to a green global result.

---

Codex Task

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.
To continue using code reviews, add credits to your account and enable them for code reviews in your settings.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@luvs01, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 7 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: ba987d6c-2e37-4060-a7fa-a53909eed84d

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 57140d6 and d17399d.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• src/providers/antigravity-models.ts
• tests/google-antigravity-wire.test.ts

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[github-actions]

✅ Deterministic PR hygiene checks passed.

[github-actions]

⏳ DRAFT

• wrong target branch (main); retarget to dev.

What to do

• Retarget this PR to dev — all contributions go to dev.

Its title has been prefixed with [WRONG BRANCH].
This pull request was already a draft. Its draft status will be preserved after every issue above is resolved.