update(pricing): Vendor Credits top-up price to $20 USD per 10,000

[jordanc-relevanceai]

Summary

• Updated Vendor Credits top-up price from $10 to $20 USD per 10,000 Vendor Credits
• Change applies to both the pricing list and the FAQ accordion in admin/subscriptions/plans.mdx

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[mintlify]

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

Project	Status	Preview	Updated (UTC)
relevanceai	🟢 Ready	View Preview	Apr 9, 2026, 11:38 PM

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

[github-actions]

🎯 Vibe check — admin/subscriptions/plans.mdx

Scores

	Dimension	Score	What's holding it back
🔴	Consistency	4/10	Vendor Credit top-up price contradicts the linked sibling page. Date in the top Warning also differs from the sibling page.
🟡	Technical clarity	7/10	Generally precise with specific UI element names. One typo in the old billing tab. The top Warning callout is too dense for a callout and breaks component rules.
🟡	Non-technical clarity	7/10	The tabbed structure does good work orienting users. The opening Warning is heavy — it's the first thing readers hit and it has four paragraphs of pricing history to parse.
🟡	Structure	7/10	Good reference-page structure overall. Warning callout is misused as a multi-paragraph announcement block, which violates Mintlify callout rules.

Score emoji key: 🟢 = 9–10, 🟡 = 6–8, 🔴 = 1–5

---

🔧 Issues

• Line 42 and 207: Vendor Credit top-up price is listed as $20 USD per 10,000 Vendor Credits. The git commit message confirms this was the intended change in this PR — but the sibling page admin/subscriptions/new-pricing.mdx still shows $10 USD per 10,000 Vendor Credits in two places (lines 143 and 156). One of these is wrong. See contradiction watch below.

• Line 8 (Warning): Date says "As of 1 September 2025". new-pricing.mdx (lines 4 and 7) says "8 September 2025". These need to agree.

• Lines 7–15 (Warning): The <Warning> callout contains four paragraphs, bold text, and a link — all of which violate the callout rules: "Callouts must be a single short paragraph — no bullet lists, no multi-line content, no bold labels inside." The announcement intent is valid, but this content should live as a page-level intro section (plain prose before the <Tabs>), not inside a <Warning>. Reserve the <Warning> for a single-sentence risk signal if needed, e.g. "Some customers are still on old plans and will be grandfathered gradually — use the tabs below to find your plan."

• Lines 375 and 408 (old billing tab): Both use the full URL https://relevanceai.com/docs/get-started/support instead of the root-relative path /get-started/support. Every other support link on this page (e.g. lines 14, 190) uses root-relative correctly.

• Line 279 (old billing tab): Typo — yourdata should be your data.

---

🧩 Component suggestions

• Lines 54–62 and equivalent numbered lists throughout both tabs: Sequential how-to steps (purchase top-ups, check usage, cancel subscription, etc.) are written as plain numbered lists. These are exactly the procedures that <Steps> is designed for — each step has a meaningful action and readers benefit from the visual progress indicator. Both tabs are consistent with each other in using plain lists, so this is a pattern decision, but <Steps> would serve readers better here.

---

⚠️ Contradiction watch

• Vendor Credit top-up price: Line 42 and the FAQ at line 207 in plans.mdx both say $20 USD per 10,000 Vendor Credits. new-pricing.mdx lines 143 and 156 say $10 USD per 10,000 Vendor Credits in two separate accordion answers ("How do I purchase Actions and Vendor Credits?" and "Can I purchase additional Actions and Vendor Credits if I run out?"). The PR commit message says this was a deliberate price update — new-pricing.mdx needs to be updated to match, or vice versa. This is a factual discrepancy that will confuse customers comparing the two pages.

• Pricing model change date: plans.mdx line 8 says "1 September 2025"; new-pricing.mdx lines 4 (description frontmatter) and 7 (body) both say "8 September 2025". These pages are directly linked to each other — a reader will notice.

---

✨ Overall vibe

The page structure is solid — the tabbed layout for old vs. new billing is exactly the right call for a transitional pricing period, and the content within each tab follows a logical reference sequence. The main problem introduced by this PR is that the price change in plans.mdx wasn't propagated to new-pricing.mdx, creating a direct contradiction between two linked pages on a factual dollar amount. Fix that, fix the Warning callout formatting, and this page is in good shape.

---

🔋 Credit usage

Item	Count
Files reviewed	1
Context pages read	2
Total lines processed	~866

Files read: admin/subscriptions/plans.mdx (417 lines), admin/subscriptions/new-pricing.mdx (190 lines), admin/system-limits.mdx (49 lines)

[github-actions]

🎯 Vibe check — admin/subscriptions/plans.mdx

Scores

	Dimension	Score	What's holding it back
🔴	Consistency	4/10	Price contradiction with linked FAQ page: plans.mdx says $20 USD per 10,000 Vendor Credits; new-pricing.mdx (the page this file links to) still says $10 USD per 10,000 in two accordion answers. Also a date mismatch: this file's Warning says "As of 1 September 2025" while new-pricing.mdx says "As of 8 September 2025".
🟡	Technical clarity	7/10	Typo on line 278 ("yourdata" — missing space). "Most updated list" (line 225) is non-standard; should be "most up-to-date list".
🟡	Non-technical clarity	7/10	The opening Warning spans four paragraphs — it's doing necessary work but is dense for a first-visit reader trying to orient themselves.
🟡	Structure	7/10	The opening <Warning> violates CLAUDE.md's callout rule (single short paragraph only). Two absolute URLs in the old-billing tab should be root-relative paths.

---

🔧 Issues

• Line 8 vs new-pricing.mdx line 7: Date mismatch. This file's Warning says "As of 1 September 2025"; new-pricing.mdx says "As of 8 September 2025". One of these is wrong — align them.

• Lines 42, 207 vs new-pricing.mdx lines 143, 156: Price contradiction. This PR updated Vendor Credits top-up price to $20 USD per 10,000 in plans.mdx, but new-pricing.mdx still quotes $10 USD per 10,000 in both the "How do I purchase Actions and Vendor Credits?" and "Can I purchase additional Actions and Vendor Credits if I run out?" accordions. Users who follow the link from line 14 to the FAQ page will see a different price. Update new-pricing.mdx to match.

• Line 7–14: The opening <Warning> spans four separate paragraphs. CLAUDE.md requires callouts to be a single short paragraph. Consider splitting: keep the one-sentence core warning in the <Warning>, and move the explanation of what to expect (old billing vs new billing, link to FAQs) into a short prose paragraph immediately below it.

• Lines 375, 408: Absolute URLs (https://relevanceai.com/docs/get-started/support) instead of root-relative paths. Should be /get-started/support to match the style used on lines 190 and 400 of the same file.

• Line 225: "the most updated list" → "the most up-to-date list".

• Line 278: "yourdata is vectorized" — missing space: "your data is vectorized".

⚠️ Contradiction watch

• Lines 42, 207 (plans.mdx) vs lines 143, 156 (new-pricing.mdx): Vendor Credits top-up price is $20 in this file and $10 in the linked FAQ page. Since this PR's stated purpose was to update the price to $20, new-pricing.mdx also needs to be updated. This will actively mislead users who click through to the FAQ.

✨ Overall vibe

The tab structure is a smart solution for the two-audience problem (old vs new billing), and the rollover behavior explanation on the new-billing side is clear and precise. The main risk is the price inconsistency between this file and the linked FAQ page — a user who reads plans.mdx sees $20, clicks the FAQ link, and sees $10. That needs fixing in the same PR. The structural issues (long Warning, absolute URLs) are minor polish items.

---

🔋 Credit usage

Item	Count
Files reviewed	1
Context pages read	2
Total lines processed	~607

Files read:

• admin/subscriptions/plans.mdx (417 lines)
• admin/subscriptions/new-pricing.mdx (190 lines)

[github-actions]

🎯 Vibe check — admin/subscriptions/new-pricing.mdx

Scores

	Dimension	Score	What's holding it back
🟡	Consistency	6/10	Product term capitalization is inconsistent within the file (Agents/agents, Tool/tool). Date contradicts plans.mdx. Direct email address reference violates CLAUDE.md. Two headings break sentence case.
🟡	Technical clarity	7/10	Most FAQ content is clear and specific. The inline intro paragraph (lines 24–25) has marketing copy that doesn't belong in technical docs.
🟢	Non-technical clarity	9/10	Well organized with grouped accordions. Timeline and billing scenarios are explained clearly.
🟡	Structure	7/10	Two headings fail sentence case. Section and accordion groupings are logical.

---

🔧 Issues

• Line 13, heading: ## What are the biggest changes? — trailing space after the ?. Minor but clean it up.
• Line 49, heading: ## Timing and Impact → sentence case: ## Timing and impact
• Line 118, email address: emailing support@relevanceai.com — CLAUDE.md prohibits referencing specific email addresses directly. The /get-started/support link is already in the same accordion; remove the email address and rely on that link.
• Line 150, accordion title: "Do I need to modify my agents to start using Actions?" — "agents" should be "Agents" (referring to the Relevance AI product feature, same as line 131 which correctly uses "Agent / Workforce").
• Line 165, heading: ## Seats, Users and Projects → sentence case: ## Seats, users and projects ("Seats" and "Users" are not product names)
• Lines 181, 186, accordion titles: triggers should be Triggers in both titles — these refer to the Relevance AI Trigger feature, not a generic verb:
  • "What happens to my Salesforce integration and triggers now that they're Enterprise only?" → "…and Triggers now that they're Enterprise only?"
  • "What tier can I use Salesforce, Snowflake and Zendesk triggers on?" → "…and Zendesk Triggers on?"
• Lines 17, 129 (internal inconsistency): "Each time a tool runs, it counts as an action" — lowercase tool and action when these refer to Relevance AI products. Line 131 correctly writes "when your Agent / Workforce runs a Tool." Match that capitalization consistently throughout. Affects both the intro paragraph (line 17) and the "What are Actions?" accordion (line 129).

🧩 Component suggestions

• Lines 24–25: The paragraph starting "We want pricing that's fair, transparent, and built for the long haul…" is marketing copy, not technical documentation ("tax intelligence," "a setup that scales with you"). This page is a reference/FAQ doc — remove this paragraph or replace it with a plain factual statement of what the model change means for the user.

⚠️ Contradiction watch

• Date mismatch with plans.mdx: This file consistently says the pricing change is "As of 8 September 2025" (lines 4, 7, 29, 53, 88). plans.mdx line 8 says "As of 1 September 2025." These two pages are directly linked and should agree on the date.

✨ Overall vibe

Solid FAQ structure — the accordion groupings (Timing, Business customers, Actions/Credits, Seats, Integrations) are logical and cover the real customer questions well. The main drag is a handful of capitalization lapses with product terms and two heading case errors, plus the email address that slipped through. Fix the date conflict with plans.mdx and this lands cleanly.

---

🎯 Vibe check — admin/subscriptions/plans.mdx

Scores

	Dimension	Score	What's holding it back
🟡	Consistency	7/10	The opening Warning callout has 4 paragraphs, violating callout rules. Date contradicts new-pricing.mdx. One lowercase product term in the old billing tab.
🟢	Technical clarity	9/10	Steps are specific and reference exact UI element names. Good use of iframes for visual walkthroughs.
🟢	Non-technical clarity	9/10	Tabs cleanly separate old and new billing. Concepts are defined before instructions begin.
🟡	Structure	7/10	Multi-paragraph callout breaks callout rules. Otherwise the two-tab structure and section flow are well done.

---

🔧 Issues

• Lines 7–15, Warning callout: CLAUDE.md is explicit — callouts must be a single short paragraph. This Warning contains four separate paragraphs. It should be reduced to one short paragraph with a link to the full FAQ page. Something like: As of 8 September 2025, Relevance AI has moved to a new pricing model. [Read the full FAQ](/admin/subscriptions/new-pricing) to understand how this affects your plan. The detail can live in the linked page.

  Also consider whether <Warning> is the right type here — this is an informational announcement, not a risk or irreversible action. <Info> would be more accurate.

• Line 277 (old billing tab): "Knowledge is our RAG solution that enables you to provide additional context to your agents and tools." — "agents" and "tools" should be "Agents" and "Tools" (Relevance AI product features).

⚠️ Contradiction watch

• Line 8: The Warning says "As of 1 September 2025" — new-pricing.mdx consistently uses "8 September 2025." These pages link directly to each other; the date must be the same on both.

✨ Overall vibe

The two-tab layout is a good solution for the old/new billing split, and the new billing tab in particular is well-written — clear definitions, specific step-by-step instructions, and useful visual walkthroughs. The main structural issue is the multi-paragraph Warning callout at the top, which needs to be collapsed to a one-liner. Fix that and the date inconsistency and this page is in good shape.

---

🔋 Credit usage

Item	Count
Files reviewed	2
Context pages read	2
Total lines processed	~723

Files read:

• admin/subscriptions/new-pricing.mdx (190 lines)
• admin/subscriptions/plans.mdx (418 lines)
• get-started/support.mdx (117 lines) — linked from both changed files, checked for contradictions