본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

cost-model

Standardized cost-estimation framework for great_cto plans. Forces explicit LLM cost, infra cost, human-supervision time, and the (defensible) human-equivalent comparison. Output format is parsable by the board's /api/cost path — must follow exactly.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

연동 도구Redis
설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md5.0 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Cost model — make cost claims defensible

great_cto reports cost numbers on the board. Those numbers MUST be auditable, because a wrong "7,638×" claim killed credibility (see docs/blog/cost-dashboard-rebuild.md). This skill defines the format.

The 4-line cost section

Every PLAN-.md and ARCH-.md cost section follows this exact template:

## Cost estimate

**LLM**: $<low>–<high> (<N> calls × $<per-call avg>)
**Human equiv**: $<low>–<high> (<hours> × $<rate>/h)
**Infra delta**: $<low>–<high>/month
**Time to ship**: <hours> agent-time, <hours> wall-clock

> Methodology: <one-sentence rationale for each range>

Why this exact format?

The board's getCostHistory() parser anchors on line-start "LLM" and "Human" labels. Mid-line references are ignored to prevent the $240-trap regression. Stick to the template.

How to estimate each line

LLM cost

For each agent in the pipeline, estimate:

  • Prompt tokens = (system prompt size) + (context the agent receives)
  • Completion tokens = (typical output for that agent type)

Quick reference for Sonnet 4 ($3/M in, $15/M out):

AgentTypical promptTypical outputPer-call cost
architect14k1.5k~$0.06
pm6k0.6k~$0.03
senior-dev8k0.8k~$0.04
qa-engineer11k0.5k~$0.04
reviewer (avg)8-12k0.6k~$0.04
security-officer12k1k~$0.05
devops9k0.8k~$0.04

For Haiku ($0.80/M / $4/M), divide by ~4. For Opus 4 ($15/M / $75/M), multiply by ~5.

Sum across the pipeline stages that actually fire (use gatesFor() and reviewersFor() from archetypes.ts to know the count).

Human equiv

The human cost to do the SAME work without agents. This is the "if I hired a senior engineer, how long would this task take, at what rate?"

  • Senior engineer: $120-180/hour (mid-market US/EU)
  • Staff engineer / specialist: $200-300/hour
  • Domain expert (security, compliance): $250-400/hour

Estimate hours conservatively. A "small feature" the LLM does in 15 minutes might take a human 2-4 hours (it's never just the typing).

Infra delta

Only count what's NEW. If the feature adds a Redis instance, count Redis. If it adds 10MB/month of S3 storage, that's noise — don't list.

Time to ship

Two numbers — both useful:

  • Agent-time: wall-clock of LLM calls (typically 5-30 min)
  • Wall-clock: actual elapsed including human gates (typically hours to days)

Sanity check before writing

Before committing the section to the plan, verify:

ratio = human_equiv / llm_cost

If ratio > 1000, something is wrong. Common bugs:

BugHow to detectFix
Wrong unit ($ vs ¢)LLM cost ends in /M tokens not $Convert: tokens / 1M × price
Counting savings not spend"Human time saved" not "Human cost"Use cost of doing it, not value of skipping
Mid-line label pollutionPlan has "$X LLM$Y human" on one line
Forecast vs actual mixedLLM forecast counts toward total_llmSeparate forecast section if needed

Cost gates

For AI archetypes (mlops, ai-system, agent-product), the pipeline opens gate:cost after architect's forecast. CTO must approve the projected monthly burn before senior-dev starts.

Use the GATE template:

## Gate:cost forecast

| Production volume | Monthly LLM cost |
|---|---|
| 1K req/day | $X |
| 10K req/day | $Y |
| 100K req/day | $Z |

Recommended monthly cap: $<cap>
Triggers above cap: <what alerts fire, who gets paged>

Anti-patterns

❌ Round-number theatre. "$0.50 LLM | $7,500 human" — looks suspicious. Use realistic ranges: "$0.50–1.20 | $225–360".

❌ Single point estimates. Always provide a range. Single numbers hide uncertainty.

❌ No methodology line. Just numbers without rationale is unverifiable.

❌ Hand-waved infra. "Some hosting cost" is not a number. Either give $, or say "infra: no change."

Example — good

## Cost estimate

**LLM**: $0.75–1.85 (3 tasks × $0.25–0.62 per Sonnet call)
**Human equiv**: $225–300 (1.5–2h × $150/h, mid-market senior)
**Infra delta**: $0/month (uses existing Express + Postgres)
**Time to ship**: ~15min agent-time, ~3h wall-clock (1 human gate)

> Methodology: tasks sized by line-count estimate; per-call cost from
> historical Sonnet 4 averages on this archetype's plans.

Ratio = 300/1.85 = 162×. Plausible. Defensible.

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

great_cto's own committed aesthetic — the instrument panel. Dark five-step surface ladder, exactly one accent, two faces divided by MEANING (Geist speaks, Geist Mono is machine-truth), tabular numerals, and a dash that is not a nought. Twelve checkable rules measured from packages/board and greatcto.systems, not designed for this file. Use when building or extending any great_cto surface — the board, the site, a report, a share page.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

avelikiy/great_cto1052026년 10월 22일 업데이트

Catalogue of known SDLC anti-patterns that great_cto agents must actively reject when reviewing architecture, plans, code, or post-mortems. Used by architect (pre-impl), pm (planning), senior-dev (impl), l3-support (post-incident).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

avelikiy/great_cto1052026년 10월 22일 업데이트

anydesign

무료

Analyze images, websites, and Figma files to extract their design and generate a `design.md` with token system, component inventory, and reconstruction notes. Use this skill whenever the user wants to understand, document, replicate, or audit the design of something visual: a screenshot, a URL, a Figma link, a Pinterest reference, a mockup, a competitor's site, a component, a dashboard, a landing page. Also when they ask 'extract the design system from X', 'document the style of Y', 'analyze this visually', 'convert this image into tokens', 'help me replicate this design', 'what palette does this site use', 'how is this built'. Also for single elements: 'copy this navbar', 'recreate this illustration', 'give me a prompt to regenerate this graphic' — element mode outputs a focused element.md, with token-grounded image-model prompts when the element is visual art. If the user brings any visual source and wants to understand it at a design level — this skill should activate.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

avelikiy/great_cto1052026년 10월 22일 업데이트

Shared review framework that every domain reviewer (pci, oracle, gov, edtech, healthcare, mlops, etc.) MUST follow. Defines the output artifact (TM-{slug}.md), mandatory sections, severity scale, verdict format, the workflow scaffold (when-invoked, Step-0 read-inputs, HANDOFF), and the "domain heuristic vs generic check" boundary. Eliminates duplication across the ~30 reviewer prompts.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

avelikiy/great_cto1052026년 10월 22일 업데이트

Structured idea generation + multi-LLM debate for the product-owner stage. Diverge (generate genuinely different bets), debate (a 4-persona panel on 4 models argues over 2 rounds), converge (synthesize a recommendation). Used by product-owner before architect; available to architect for design-space exploration.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

avelikiy/great_cto1052026년 10월 22일 업데이트

Run the great_cto controlled Codex lifecycle with controller-owned writes, verifier evidence, human gates and optional artifact release.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

avelikiy/great_cto1052026년 10월 22일 업데이트

avelikiy의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고