Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHubEnglish overview

caveman-evidence-review

Review Caveman Cloud spending, latency, errors, and potential improvements using current reports and traces, or individual execution records. Produce findings tied to time windows and trace IDs, while keeping measured costs, estimated opportunities, and verified savings separate.

OriginalShow the original description

Read-only review of Caveman Cloud evidence: cost, Cave Score, workflows, traces, latency, errors, routing, savings. Use when asked what Caveman found or where LLM spend goes.

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Good for

  • Understanding which workflows drive LLM spending
  • Investigating slow responses and errors
  • Reviewing measured costs and verified savings separately
  • Comparing suspect execution records with a control group

Overview

What it does

Read current Caveman Cloud data to examine LLM cost breakdowns, Cave Score, workflows by purpose, response times, errors, model routing, and savings. The review checks individual execution records, called traces, alongside aggregate reports. Findings include the time window and record IDs used as evidence. Measured costs, estimated improvement opportunities, ledger-verified savings, and verification costs are kept separate.

When it helps

Use it to identify which workflows drive LLM spending or investigate conditions associated with delays and errors. It compares suspect groups of executions with a control group or an earlier period, distinguishing supported findings from explanations that remain unproven.

Example requests

  • “Break down LLM costs by purpose for this period and explain the main expenses.”
  • “Compare execution records for workflows with slow responses.”
  • “Report verified savings separately from estimated improvement opportunities.”

Notes

You must log in to Caveman Cloud and select a project. The skill reads through MCP or CLI and does not start or approve experiments. It does not retrieve prompt or response content unless explicitly requested. Empty results do not mean zero cost or risk, and aggregate reports alone do not establish a cause.

This overview was written by AI (OpenAI Codex) from the public SKILL.md. Check the original below for the exact behavior.

Document check

AI checked the SKILL.md for operations that need care and for setup requirements. The score comes only from actually running the skill (hands-on test).

SafetyAre sending data, deleting files, and running commands disclosed?
AGoodReads are restricted to the selected project; operations are read-only, and payload retrieval requires an explicit request.
Easy setupDoes it need few tools or API keys, and are they documented?
BPartly lackingLogin, project selection, MCP, and CLI are identified, but connection and installation instructions are absent.

Not counted in the score. Rated by AI (OpenAI Codex) as of Oct 20, 2026. Treat it as a guide and read the original before installing.

Disagree? Request a re-evaluation

Tell us which point is wrong and why. No login needed. We will check it against the SKILL.md, redo the evaluation, and show the result here.

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

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md3.6 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Review Caveman evidence

Act as a read-only operator. Build conclusions from current Caveman data, not from repository guesses. Never start, approve, cancel, or roll back an experiment from this skill.

Hard rules

  1. Keep these buckets separate:
    • measured provider-complete list-price cost;
    • inferred daily headroom;
    • verified ledger savings;
    • evidence cost. Never add or relabel them.
  2. Do not fetch prompt, completion, tool, or artifact payloads unless the user explicitly asks for payload review. Metadata, spans, timing, models, token counts, status, and optimizer attribution are enough for the default review.
  3. Scope every read to the project selected by Caveman context. Never supply an organization id.
  4. Empty results are evidence of no current signal, not zero cost or zero risk.
  5. Cite trace ids and exact time windows used. Do not claim a cause from an aggregate alone.

Step 1 — Load context

Prefer MCP:

caveman_context {}

CLI fallback:

caveman cloud whoami
caveman cloud projects list

Stop if login or project selection is missing. Ask the user to run caveman login or select a project; never guess.

Step 2 — Establish baseline

Use caveman_report for:

  • overview
  • costs
  • score
  • workflows
  • verified_savings

Then use caveman_plan for ranked daily headroom. If question is narrow, skip unrelated reports. Read shortest set that can answer it.

CLI fallback:

caveman cloud costs
caveman cloud score
caveman cloud plan --json

State report window and basis before interpreting direction.

Step 3 — Test the leading explanation with traces

Use caveman_trace_search. Choose a bounded window and closed filters: workflow, agent, model, provider, error code, runtime mode, cache status, optimization id, status class, token/cost/latency bounds, compression, or monitor verdict.

Useful groupings:

  • workflow — find jobs driving cost or failures;
  • model — compare model mix;
  • session — isolate retry or loop behavior;
  • ungrouped — identify exact traces.

Compare a suspect cohort with a control cohort or earlier bounded window. Do not infer causality from one expensive trace.

CLI fallback:

caveman cloud traces search \
  --workflow <slug> \
  --from <RFC3339> \
  --to <RFC3339> \
  --sort total_cost_usd \
  --dir desc \
  --limit 25

Step 4 — Inspect representative traces

Call caveman_trace_get for a small number of high-signal trace ids. Inspect request and span metadata, latency, status, token counts, cache state, applied optimizers, and model route. Keep payload retrieval off.

CLI fallback:

caveman cloud traces show <trace-id> --spans

Step 5 — Report

Use this shape:

## Caveman evidence review

Scope: <project> · <from> to <to>
Measured cost: <value and basis>
Verified savings: <ledger value, kept separate>
Inferred headroom: <per-day band, kept separate>

Findings:
1. <finding> — <aggregate evidence> — traces <ids>
2. <finding> — <aggregate evidence> — traces <ids>

Unproven:
- <plausible explanation lacking a control, trace, or eval>

Next read-only check:
- <one bounded query>

Possible action:
- <proposal only; use caveman-manage for read-only lifecycle review and safety gate>

If data is missing, name missing signal and stop at strongest supported statement. Never turn a catalog subtotal into an invoice or an experiment result into verified savings.

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

cavecrew

FreeSummary

Delegate code lookup, small edits, and diff reviews to three specialized subagents. Their compact, structured results help conserve the main agent's context, with guidance on when to delegate and when to keep work in the main conversation.

  • Locating definitions and callers
  • Making a focused edit across one or two files
  • Reviewing a diff for bugs
JuliusBrussee/caveman114.7KUpdated Oct 24, 2026

caveman

FreeSummary

Make agent replies shorter and easier to scan by putting answers first and removing filler. Preserves technical details, exact commands, numbers, and essential conditions while keeping the user's chosen language.

  • Reading concise replies in a terminal
  • Getting conclusions before explanations
  • Reducing wording while keeping technical details
JuliusBrussee/caveman114.7KUpdated Oct 24, 2026

caveman-commit

FreeSummary

Create short commit messages using Conventional Commits, a format that labels the type of change. Emphasize intent, keep the subject concise, and include explanatory text when breaking changes, security fixes, data migrations, or reversions require context.

  • Writing a commit message for code changes
  • Standardizing commit message format
  • Documenting breaking changes and migration steps
JuliusBrussee/caveman114.7KUpdated Oct 24, 2026

caveman-compress

FreeSummary

Compress memory files and task lists into shorter wording to reduce input tokens. Keeps code and document structure intact, saves a readable backup separately, and sends the text to the configured model provider.

  • Shortening CLAUDE.md to reduce input tokens
  • Compressing task lists and preference files
  • Keeping readable backups of compressed files
JuliusBrussee/caveman114.7KUpdated Oct 24, 2026

caveman-discover

FreeSummary

Find LLM workflows in a codebase and label them by the job they perform, so Caveman Cloud can separate spending by workflow. Present a labeling proposal for approval, apply focused code changes, and check an affected execution path.

  • Breaking down LLM spending by job
  • Inventorying LLM use in APIs, scheduled jobs, and scripts
  • Separating evaluation spending from other workflows
JuliusBrussee/caveman114.7KUpdated Oct 24, 2026

caveman-explore

FreeSummary

Locate relevant code in an unfamiliar repository or after a direct search fails. This read-only explorer returns a short list of file paths, verified line ranges, and relevance notes for another agent to use.

  • Find starting points in an unfamiliar codebase
  • Locate logic spread across multiple files
  • Investigate after a direct search fails
JuliusBrussee/caveman114.7KUpdated Oct 24, 2026

See all skills by JuliusBrussee

Report a problem with this skill