Budgeting Quota So Parallel Agents in Antigravity 2.0 Don't Run Dry
Run several agents at once in Antigravity 2.0 and your quota can be gone by mid-afternoon, right when you need it for the real work. Here is how I measure per-agent consumption, find the Pro-vs-Ultra break-even, and budget so I never hit the ceiling.
The first wall I hit after adopting Antigravity 2.0 in earnest wasn't speed or accuracy — it was that agents simply stopped responding in the afternoon. I would fire off research, refactors, and test generation across several agents in the morning, everything flowing nicely, and then by the time I sat down for the real implementation work after lunch, I was already at the ceiling. The most important task of the day got pushed to tomorrow.
Because 2.0 doesn't surface your quota, you can't see how much you've already spent. As someone running several apps and four blogs solo as an indie developer at Dolice, this turned out to be far more of an operations problem than I expected. This article treats it as exactly that: I measure what one agent run actually costs and build a budget that keeps me off the ceiling.
Count heavy and light tasks separately
The first step in quota management is to stop counting every agent run as equal. An Antigravity agent run internally calls the model many times, uses tools, and loads long context. Two runs that each look like "one execution" can differ by more than 10x in consumption.
I manage runs in three tiers.
Consumption tiers
Heavy: reading the whole codebase to make a design decision, multi-file refactors, long investigations. One run costs a lot.
Medium: implementing a single feature, generating tests, scoped debugging.
Light: a one-file edit, a commit message, a short question.
Just labeling a task before you hand it to an agent lets you reason: "I've already run two heavy tasks today, so the afternoon stays medium-or-lighter." Counting, not feeling, is where ceiling management begins.
✦
Thank you for reading this far.
Continue Reading
What follows includes implementation code, benchmarks, and practical content we hope you'll find useful. This site runs without ads — server and development costs are supported entirely by members like you. If it's been helpful, we'd be truly grateful for your support.
WHAT YOU'LL LEARN
✦A simple formula to estimate the relative cost of one parallel agent run, plus a time-of-day budget that keeps the afternoon alive
✦How to decide between AI Pro ($20/mo) and AI Ultra ($100/mo) by working backwards from how many heavy tasks you run per day
✦A local counter script that keeps estimating remaining quota when Antigravity 2.0 won't show you the number
Secure payment via Stripe · Cancel anytime
✦
Unlock This Article
Get full access to the rest of this article. Buy once, read anytime. This site is ad-free — your support goes directly toward keeping it running.
Exact token counts are hard to pull from 2.0, but estimates are doable. Here is the formula I use.
# estimate_cost.py — approximate the "units" one agent run consumes# Not a billing figure; an internal index to normalize relative weightdef estimate_units(task): # input scale: files read times average line count input_scale = task["files_read"] * task["avg_lines"] # each tool call re-runs the model, so weight it tool_overhead = task["tool_calls"] * 1.4 # output scale: generated code and explanation output_scale = task["output_lines"] * 1.2 units = (input_scale / 100) + tool_overhead + (output_scale / 50) return round(units, 1)heavy = estimate_units({"files_read": 40, "avg_lines": 180, "tool_calls": 25, "output_lines": 300})light = estimate_units({"files_read": 2, "avg_lines": 60, "tool_calls": 3, "output_lines": 40})print(f"heavy={heavy} light={light}")# heavy=114.4 light=6.4 → a heavy run is roughly 18x a light one
This formula doesn't aim to hit the exact bill. Its purpose is to lock in the relative sense that "one heavy run equals about 18 light ones" as a number. Once you internalize that ratio, you can budget your day in a shared "unit."
The daily budget I actually run looks roughly like this.
Time-of-day budget
Morning (deep work): up to 40% of the day's total. Put heavy runs here.
Early afternoon (real implementation): hold 40% in reserve. The block you must never cut.
Evening (finishing, light work): the remaining 20%, mostly light runs.
Three heavy runs in the morning blow past that 40%. The single biggest lever for me was deciding in advance: "no more than two heavy runs before noon."
Find the Pro-vs-Ultra break-even from task count
As of June 2026, your ceiling differs sharply between AI Pro ($20/mo) and AI Ultra ($100/mo, roughly 5x the Pro limit). The practical way to choose isn't by price — it's by working backwards from how many heavy tasks you run per day.
# plan_breakeven.py — recommend a plan from daily heavy-task countPRO_DAILY_HEAVY = 4 # heavy runs Pro sustains comfortablyULTRA_MULTIPLIER = 5 # Ultra is about 5x the ceilingdef recommend_plan(daily_heavy_tasks): ultra_daily = PRO_DAILY_HEAVY * ULTRA_MULTIPLIER if daily_heavy_tasks <= PRO_DAILY_HEAVY: return "Pro ($20) is enough; you rarely hit the ceiling" elif daily_heavy_tasks <= ultra_daily: return "Ultra ($100) recommended; Pro dries up by afternoon" else: return "Even Ultra falls short; split and lighten tasks first"for n in (3, 8, 25): print(f"{n} heavy/day -> {recommend_plan(n)}")
The point I want to stress: upgrading to Ultra is not a fix. If you're throwing 25 heavy tasks a day, that's not a plan problem — it's a design problem of slicing tasks too fine or re-reading full context every time. Before moving to Ultra, I recommend first checking whether each heavy task can be split into two medium ones. A plan change is the last resort.
If you can't see the quota, keep counting it yourself
Since 2.0 hides the remaining balance, you have to estimate it. I wrap every agent launch in a thin layer that adds the estimated units to a local counter.
# quota_tracker.py — track cumulative daily use on a JST day keyimport json, datetime, pathlibLOG = pathlib.Path.home() / ".antigravity_quota.json"DAILY_BUDGET = 400 # units; calibrated from my own ceiling-hit daysdef today_key(): jst = datetime.timezone(datetime.timedelta(hours=9)) return datetime.datetime.now(jst).strftime("%Y-%m-%d")def add(units): data = json.loads(LOG.read_text()) if LOG.exists() else {} key = today_key() data[key] = round(data.get(key, 0) + units, 1) LOG.write_text(json.dumps(data)) remaining = DAILY_BUDGET - data[key] status = "low" if remaining < 80 else "ok" print(f"used={data[key]} / {DAILY_BUDGET} remaining={remaining} {status}") return remainingadd(114.4) # call right after a heavy run
Your first DAILY_BUDGET value can be a guess. Record the cumulative units on days you actually hit the ceiling, then nudge the threshold just below that. Within two or three weeks you'll see the line where things get risky. What matters in production isn't precision — it's getting a warning before you run dry.
A gotcha: using date raw aggregates in UTC, so late-night work in Japan gets added to the previous day. Always build the day key in JST. I tripped on this repeatedly in my own automated aggregation, so I strongly recommend making the timezone explicit from the start.
Budgeting is fixing priorities, not going without
"Quota management" sounds like cutting back, but what I actually do is fix priorities first thing in the morning. Always reserve the afternoon's implementation block, cap heavy runs at two before noon, and when in doubt downgrade to light. Holding just those three lines, I almost never lose a day to the ceiling anymore.
Parallel agents are magically fast, but run them without a plan and you'll be out of cards during your most important hours. Calibrating the estimate, the counter, and the break-even to your own workflow is the quiet, reliable foundation for using 2.0 hard every day. If you've been losing your afternoons too, I hope this helps.
Share
Thank You for Reading
Antigravity Lab is ad-free, supported entirely by members like you. We publish practical guides daily with implementation code, benchmarks, and production-ready patterns. If you've found it useful, we'd love to have you on board.