Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

token-budget-advisor

Choose how detailed an answer should be before it is written, using four levels and estimated token counts, a measure of text length. The skill then adjusts the response and keeps the chosen level for subsequent replies.

OriginalShow the original description

Offer a choice of response depth (25%/50%/75%/100%) with token estimates before answering, then answer at that level. Use when the user asks to control response length or token budget, such as 'token budget', 'short version', 'brief answer', 'respuesta corta vs larga', 'cuántos tokens', 'ahorrar tokens', 'responde al 50%', 'dame la versión corta', 'quiero controlar cuánto usas'. Skip if depth is already set this session or 'token' means an auth/payment token.

See how to install

Good for

  • Choosing between a brief answer and a detailed explanation
  • Checking estimated token use before an answer
  • Requesting a balanced answer with one example
  • Keeping a consistent detail level throughout a session

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md5.6 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Token Budget Advisor (TBA)

Intercept the response flow to offer the user a choice about response depth before Claude answers.

When to Use

  • User wants to control how long or detailed a response is
  • User mentions tokens, budget, depth, or response length
  • User says "short version", "tldr", "brief", "al 25%", "exhaustive", etc.
  • Any time the user wants to choose depth/detail level upfront

Do not trigger when: user already set a level this session (maintain it silently), or the answer is trivially one line.

How It Works

Step 1 — Estimate input tokens

Use the repository's canonical context-budget heuristics to estimate the prompt's token count mentally.

Use the same calibration guidance as context-budget:

  • prose: words × 1.3
  • code-heavy or mixed/code blocks: chars / 4

For mixed content, use the dominant content type and keep the estimate heuristic.

Step 2 — Estimate response size by complexity

Classify the prompt, then apply the multiplier range to get the full response window:

ComplexityMultiplier rangeExample prompts
Simple3× – 8×"What is X?", yes/no, single fact
Medium8× – 20×"How does X work?"
Medium-High10× – 25×Code request with context
Complex15× – 40×Multi-part analysis, comparisons, architecture
Creative10× – 30×Stories, essays, narrative writing

Response window = input_tokens × mult_min to input_tokens × mult_max (but don’t exceed your model’s configured output-token limit).

Step 3 — Present depth options

Present this block before answering, using the actual estimated numbers:

Analyzing your prompt...

Input: ~[N] tokens  |  Type: [type]  |  Complexity: [level]  |  Language: [lang]

Choose your depth level:

[1] Essential   (25%)  ->  ~[tokens]   Direct answer only, no preamble
[2] Moderate    (50%)  ->  ~[tokens]   Answer + context + 1 example
[3] Detailed    (75%)  ->  ~[tokens]   Full answer with alternatives
[4] Exhaustive (100%)  ->  ~[tokens]   Everything, no limits

Which level? (1-4 or say "25% depth", "50% depth", "75% depth", "100% depth")

Precision: heuristic estimate ~85-90% accuracy (±15%).

Level token estimates (within the response window):

  • 25% → min + (max - min) × 0.25
  • 50% → min + (max - min) × 0.50
  • 75% → min + (max - min) × 0.75
  • 100% → max

Step 4 — Respond at the chosen level

LevelTarget lengthIncludeOmit
25% Essential2-4 sentences maxDirect answer, key conclusionContext, examples, nuance, alternatives
50% Moderate1-3 paragraphsAnswer + necessary context + 1 exampleDeep analysis, edge cases, references
75% DetailedStructured responseMultiple examples, pros/cons, alternativesExtreme edge cases, exhaustive references
100% ExhaustiveNo restrictionEverything — full analysis, all code, all perspectivesNothing

Shortcuts — skip the question

If the user already signals a level, respond at that level immediately without asking:

What they sayLevel
"1" / "25% depth" / "short version" / "brief answer" / "tldr"25%
"2" / "50% depth" / "moderate depth" / "balanced answer"50%
"3" / "75% depth" / "detailed answer" / "thorough answer"75%
"4" / "100% depth" / "exhaustive answer" / "full deep dive"100%

If the user set a level earlier in the session, maintain it silently for subsequent responses unless they change it.

Precision note

This skill uses heuristic estimation — no real tokenizer. Accuracy ~85-90%, variance ±15%. Always show the disclaimer.

Examples

Triggers

  • "Give me the short version first."
  • "How many tokens will your answer use?"
  • "Respond at 50% depth."
  • "I want the exhaustive answer, not the summary."
  • "Dame la version corta y luego la detallada."

Does Not Trigger

  • "What is a JWT token?"
  • "The checkout flow uses a payment token."
  • "Is this normal?"
  • "Complete the refactor."
  • Follow-up questions after the user already chose a depth for the session

Source

Standalone skill from TBA — Token Budget Advisor for Claude Code. Original project also ships a Python estimator script, but this repository keeps the skill self-contained and heuristic-only.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

accessibility

FreeSummary

Design and audit interfaces for Web, iOS, and Android using WCAG 2.2 accessibility guidance. Check screen-reader labels, keyboard navigation, contrast, and control sizes to identify barriers and guide implementation for people using assistive technology.

  • Adding descriptive labels to icon-only buttons
  • Reviewing keyboard navigation and modal focus
  • Checking contrast and control sizes
affaan-m/ECC283.4KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

Investigate unreliable AI agents across 12 layers, including instructions, memory, tool execution, and display. Use code and logs to trace failures, rank findings by severity, and produce an ordered repair plan that prioritizes code changes.

  • Investigating failures that appear only inside an agent application
  • Tracing old conversation content leaking into new sessions
  • Checking skipped or falsely claimed tool execution
affaan-m/ECC283.4KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

agent-eval

FreeSummary

Compare coding agents on tasks from your own codebase. Define success checks, run agents in separate Git working directories, and report pass rates, available API costs, completion time, and consistency across repeated trials.

  • Comparing coding agents on real development tasks
  • Evaluating a new tool or model before adoption
  • Checking performance after agent updates
affaan-m/ECC283.4KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

Design and refine an AI agent’s available actions, tool inputs, and result formats. Define recovery steps for errors, manage the information kept in context, and evaluate changes through completion rates, retries, and cost per successful task.

  • Define an AI agent’s tool set and input formats
  • Make tool results and next steps easier to interpret
  • Specify safe retries and stopping conditions
affaan-m/ECC283.4KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

Diagnose failed AI agent runs by capturing errors, checking likely causes, and choosing small, reversible recovery actions. The workflow produces a structured report of the failure, recovery steps, and evidence, helping explain repeated retries or stalled progress.

  • Diagnosing repeated tool calls with no progress
  • Investigating quality loss as context grows
  • Checking file paths and environment mismatches
affaan-m/ECC283.4KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

Diagnose AI agent runs that fail repeatedly, loop through tools, or lose track of the task. Capture errors and environment details, test a focused recovery action, and produce a report explaining the evidence and outcome.

  • Diagnosing repeated failures in an agent run
  • Investigating loops through the same tool calls
  • Reviewing output degradation as context grows
affaan-m/ECC283.4KUpdated Oct 5, 2026

See all skills by affaan-m

Report a problem with this skill