本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

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.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md5.0 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

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.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

avelikiy/great_cto1032026年10月12日 更新

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).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

avelikiy/great_cto1032026年10月12日 更新

anydesign

無料

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

avelikiy/great_cto1032026年10月12日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

avelikiy/great_cto1032026年10月12日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

avelikiy/great_cto1032026年10月12日 更新

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

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

avelikiy/great_cto1032026年10月12日 更新

avelikiy のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する