Plan, design, and implement A/B tests and experiments with statistical rigor. Covers hypothesis frameworks, sample sizing, metrics, and result analysis.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Reduce LLM API spend by 40-80% through model routing, prompt caching, compression, and cost observability without degrading user-facing quality.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
실행 점수 미검증
설치 방법 보기설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.
Expert in LLM cost engineering for reducing AI API spend at scale. Cut costs by 40-80% without degrading user-facing quality -- using model routing, caching, prompt compression, and observability to make every token count.
AI API costs are engineering costs. Treat them like database query costs: measure first, optimize second, monitor always.
Check for context first: If project-context.md exists, read it before asking questions. Pull the tech stack, architecture, and AI feature details already there.
Gather this context (ask in one shot):
You have spend but no clear picture of where it goes. Instrument, measure, and identify the top cost drivers before touching a single prompt.
Cost drivers are known. Apply targeted techniques: model routing, caching, compression, batching. Measure impact of each change.
Building new AI features. Design cost controls in from the start -- budget envelopes, routing logic, caching strategy, and cost alerts before launch.
Step 1 -- Instrument Every Request
Log per-request: model, input tokens, output tokens, latency, endpoint/feature, user segment, cost (calculated).
Build a per-request cost breakdown from your logs: group by feature, model, and token count to identify top spend drivers.
Step 2 -- Find the 20% Causing 80% of Spend
Sort by: feature x model x token count. Usually 2-3 endpoints drive the majority of cost. Target those first.
Step 3 -- Classify Requests by Complexity
| Complexity | Characteristics | Right Model Tier |
|---|---|---|
| Simple | Classification, extraction, yes/no, short output | Small (Haiku, GPT-4o-mini, Gemini Flash) |
| Medium | Summarization, structured output, moderate reasoning | Mid (Sonnet, GPT-4o) |
| Complex | Multi-step reasoning, code gen, long context | Large (Opus, GPT-4o, o3) |
Apply techniques in this order (highest ROI first):
Route by task complexity, not by default. Use a lightweight classifier or rule engine.
Decision framework:
Supported by: Anthropic (cache_control), OpenAI (prompt caching, automatic on some models), Google (context caching).
Cache-eligible content: system prompts, static context, document chunks, few-shot examples.
Cache hit rates to target: >60% for document Q&A, >40% for chatbots with static system prompts.
How it works on the Claude API (check the provider's docs for others):
cache_control: {type: "ephemeral"} on a block, or top-level automatic caching; up to 4 per request.ttl: "1h"; reads about 0.1× (less on the newest models). The 5-minute TTL pays off from the second request; the 1-hour TTL needs at least three, so use it only for traffic with gaps longer than 5 minutes.usage.cache_read_input_tokens: zero across repeated requests means a silent invalidator (a timestamp in the system prompt, unsorted JSON, a changing tool list).LLMs over-generate by default. Force conciseness:
Remove filler without losing meaning. Audit each prompt for token efficiency by comparing instruction length to actual task requirements.
| Before | After |
|---|---|
| "Please carefully analyze the following text and provide..." | "Analyze:" |
| "It is important that you remember to always..." | "Always:" |
| Repeating context already in system prompt | Remove |
| HTML/markdown when plain text works | Strip tags |
Cache LLM responses keyed by embedding similarity, not exact match. Serve cached responses for semantically equivalent questions.
Tools: GPTCache, LangChain cache, custom Redis + embedding lookup.
Threshold guidance: start at cosine similarity >0.95 and tune it on real query pairs: a threshold that is too low serves a wrong answer that looks right.
Rules: key the cache by tenant and by the user's permission scope; never cache personalized or account-specific answers; invalidate entries when the source documents change; log hits so a bad cached answer can be traced and purged.
Provider batch endpoints run requests asynchronously at a discount: the Claude Message Batches API costs 50% of standard prices on every token, cache reads and writes included, and returns results within 24 hours (most batches finish within an hour). OpenAI and Google offer batch modes too; check their current pricing.
Fits evals, backfills, nightly summaries, classification of a backlog. Results arrive in any order: key them by custom_id. Keep user-facing requests synchronous.
Build these controls in before launch:
Budget Envelopes -- per feature, per user tier, per day. Set hard limits and soft alerts at 80% of limit.
Routing Layer -- classify then route then call. Never call the large model by default.
Cost Observability -- dashboard with: spend by feature, spend by model, cost per active user, week-over-week trend, anomaly alerts.
Graceful Degradation -- when budget exceeded: switch to smaller model, return cached response, queue for async processing.
LLM Gateway -- once two or more apps or providers call LLMs, put a gateway between them and the providers (LiteLLM proxy self-hosted; Portkey, Helicone or Cloudflare AI Gateway hosted). It gives in one place:
The gateway is a single point of failure and sees every prompt: run at least two instances, apply the same PII redaction as the app, and check the installed version's docs before writing its config.
Surface these without being asked:
| When you ask for... | You get... |
|---|---|
| Cost audit | Per-feature spend breakdown with top 3 optimization targets and projected savings |
| Model routing design | Routing decision tree with model recommendations per task type and estimated cost delta |
| Caching strategy | Which content to cache, cache key design, expected hit rate, implementation pattern |
| Prompt optimization | Token-by-token audit with compression suggestions and before/after token counts |
| Architecture review | Cost-efficiency scorecard (0-100) with prioritized fixes and projected monthly savings |
All output follows the structured standard:
| Anti-Pattern | Why It Fails | Better Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Using the largest model for every request | 80%+ of requests are simple tasks that a smaller model handles equally well, wasting 5-10x on cost | Implement a routing layer that classifies request complexity and selects the cheapest adequate model |
| Optimizing prompts without measuring first | You cannot know what to optimize without per-feature spend visibility | Instrument token logging and cost-per-request before making any changes |
| Caching by exact string match only | Minor phrasing differences cause cache misses on semantically identical queries | Use embedding-based semantic caching with a cosine similarity threshold |
| Setting a single global max_tokens | Some endpoints need 2000 tokens, others need 50 — a global cap either wastes or truncates | Set max_tokens per endpoint based on measured p95 output length |
| Ignoring system prompt size | A 3000-token system prompt sent on every request is a hidden cost multiplier | Use prompt caching for static system prompts and strip unnecessary instructions |
| Treating cost optimization as a one-time project | Model pricing changes, traffic patterns shift, and new features launch — costs drift | Set up continuous cost monitoring with weekly spend reports and anomaly alerts |
| Compressing prompts to the point of ambiguity | Over-compressed prompts cause the model to hallucinate or produce low-quality output, requiring retries | Compress filler words and redundant context but preserve all task-critical instructions |
아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.
로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.
아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.
Plan, design, and implement A/B tests and experiments with statistical rigor. Covers hypothesis frameworks, sample sizing, metrics, and result analysis.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Web/mobile accessibility decision guide: WCAG 2.2 AA, ARIA, keyboard nav, focus management, contrast, testing. Use for: a11y, accessibility, wcag, aria, screen reader, keyboard, contrast.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Generate, iterate, and scale ad creative for paid advertising across Google, Meta, LinkedIn, and X. Covers platform specs, creative frameworks, and quality validation.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Musica interactiva para juegos: layering vertical, re-secuenciacion horizontal, stingers, reglas de transicion con sync points, y mapeo de estados de gameplay a musica. Usar para: musica adaptativa, sistema de musica dinamica, transiciones musicales, combat music.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Design multi-agent systems, create agent architectures, define communication patterns, and build autonomous agent workflows with structured evaluation frameworks.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Inter-agent communication protocol for C-suite agent teams. Defines invocation syntax, loop prevention, isolation rules, response formats, and quality loops.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.