clay-borg/tools/cb-cost.py

1011 lines
41 KiB
Python
Raw Normal View History

T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
#!/usr/bin/env python3
"""M-D2-CST: USD cost of agentic work, attributed to workplan tasks.
Normative spec: specs/CostAccounting.md. Decision: decisions/ADR-0003.
Reads Claude Code session transcripts, deduplicates by requestId, prices
each response at its own model's rate and its own cache TTL, and attributes
it to the task named by the next commit at or after it within the same
session.
Positive control (InnerLoop v1.0 §Step 5, CostAccounting CA-02/CA-14):
this tool asserts it did the work it reports. `--self-test` exercises four
assertions against fixtures with known answers; every reporting run checks
the dedup invariant and reconciles attributed + unattributed + open +
unpriced against the raw total, aborting rather than printing a number that
does not add up.
Usage:
python3 tools/cb-cost.py # whole repo, no pin
python3 tools/cb-cost.py --pin fc76445 # pinned at a commit
python3 tools/cb-cost.py --by-task # per-task attribution
python3 tools/cb-cost.py --composition # cost split by component
python3 tools/cb-cost.py --self-test # positive control
python3 tools/cb-cost.py --json
"""
import argparse
import collections
import datetime
import glob
import json
import os
import re
import subprocess
import sys
try:
import tomllib
except ModuleNotFoundError: # pragma: no cover - py<3.11
print("ERROR: needs Python 3.11+ for tomllib", file=sys.stderr)
sys.exit(1)
2026-07-31 10:13:52 +02:00
from repo import ROOT as REPO # noqa: E402 (single source of fact, T01)
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
PRICES = os.path.join(REPO, "benchmarks", "baselines", "model-prices.toml")
COMPONENTS = ("input", "output", "cache_read", "write_5m", "write_1h")
CB-WP-0004 T02: make task-done — close a task on measured numbers Replaces the three hand-done steps of a task close (46 turns, $11.52 per CB-RES-0003): the heredoc flipping status in the workplan file, the hand-written hub call, and the hand-typed token counts. The third is the reason this task exists. Every update_task_status this repo produced carried estimated tokens_in/tokens_out — in a project whose central finding is that estimated token counts are worthless. task-done reads the measured figure from the transcripts, or refuses; there is no path through it that emits an estimate. cb-cost gains by_task_detail: cost, response count, model histogram and token components per task. task-done imports cb-cost rather than parsing its printed table, so the hub figure is not a copy that can drift from its source. The positive control found a real defect before the tool ran once. Attribution keyed on a bare T\d\d from the commit subject, so CB-WP-0002 T01, CB-WP-0003 T01 and CB-WP-0004 T01 shared a bucket: the self-test reported $12.10 for "T01" where the qualified figure is $2.33. That 5.2x overstatement would have been pushed to the hub as a *measured* number — the same fiction in a new form. task_label() now keys qualified subjects on the full id and leaves unqualified ones bare rather than retro-assigning them to a workplan. The pinned $93.15 benchmark is unchanged, so historical attribution was not disturbed. Fourth instance of trusted arithmetic: a number believed because a program produced it rather than a hand. Refusals, all exercised by --self-test: unknown id, typo'd id, already-done task, missing state_hub_task_id, no measured spend, and a status flip that produced no change. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 10:17:51 +02:00
# CA-08 attribution key. Qualified first: a bare `T\d\d` collides across
# workplans — CB-WP-0002 T01, CB-WP-0003 T01 and CB-WP-0004 T01 all matched
# the same bucket, so a per-task figure summed three unrelated tasks. Found
# by T02's positive control, which reported $12.10 for "T01".
TASK_QUALIFIED_RE = re.compile(r"\b(CB-WP-\d+)[ -](T\d\d)\b")
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
TASK_RE = re.compile(r"\bT\d\d\b")
CB-WP-0004 T02: make task-done — close a task on measured numbers Replaces the three hand-done steps of a task close (46 turns, $11.52 per CB-RES-0003): the heredoc flipping status in the workplan file, the hand-written hub call, and the hand-typed token counts. The third is the reason this task exists. Every update_task_status this repo produced carried estimated tokens_in/tokens_out — in a project whose central finding is that estimated token counts are worthless. task-done reads the measured figure from the transcripts, or refuses; there is no path through it that emits an estimate. cb-cost gains by_task_detail: cost, response count, model histogram and token components per task. task-done imports cb-cost rather than parsing its printed table, so the hub figure is not a copy that can drift from its source. The positive control found a real defect before the tool ran once. Attribution keyed on a bare T\d\d from the commit subject, so CB-WP-0002 T01, CB-WP-0003 T01 and CB-WP-0004 T01 shared a bucket: the self-test reported $12.10 for "T01" where the qualified figure is $2.33. That 5.2x overstatement would have been pushed to the hub as a *measured* number — the same fiction in a new form. task_label() now keys qualified subjects on the full id and leaves unqualified ones bare rather than retro-assigning them to a workplan. The pinned $93.15 benchmark is unchanged, so historical attribution was not disturbed. Fourth instance of trusted arithmetic: a number believed because a program produced it rather than a hand. Refusals, all exercised by --self-test: unknown id, typo'd id, already-done task, missing state_hub_task_id, no measured spend, and a status flip that produced no change. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 10:17:51 +02:00
def task_label(subject):
"""Attribution label for a commit subject, or None.
Qualified ids (`CB-WP-0004 T01`) become `CB-WP-0004-T01`. Bare ids
(`T01: ...`) stay bare commits predating this convention did not name
their workplan and must not be retroactively assigned to one.
"""
m = TASK_QUALIFIED_RE.search(subject)
if m:
return f"{m.group(1)}-{m.group(2)}"
m = TASK_RE.search(subject)
return m.group(0) if m else None
CB-WP-0004 T05: control loop — 6 points recovered, not 25-30 cb-cost gains --since, so the baseline (--pin 578dcbe, 662 responses, $135.60) and this pass (--since 578dcbe, 83 responses, $7.82) are two disjoint windows over the same transcripts. Every verdict is on share of pass, since the windows differ 17x in size. Test 1 — did mechanical turns disappear? Partly. Mechanical share fell 38.2% -> 32.4%. Six points against a predicted 25-30; reported unmet, and no target was moved in this commit. environment setup 11.5% -> 0.6% (85 turns -> 1) met, decisively hub + workplan 8.5% -> 0.0% (46 turns -> 0) met text patching 10.4% -> 9.6% not met orientation 5.1% -> 21.2% not met, worse The confound is stated before any defence of the numbers: this is the pass that built the tools, and the two categories that missed are exactly the two whose tools were under construction. The clean test is the next pass, and it is carried forward rather than waived. Test 2 — did the work relocate? Not into prose. Output tokens per response fell 896 -> 681. Output's rising share of cost is a shrinking denominator, not more writing. Cost per response halved and the evidence refuses to claim it: that is compaction (mean context 232,982 -> 117,822), and attributing it to tooling would repeat CB-WP-0002's original error in a new direction. Test 3 — did quality hold? Yes, recorded as explicit judgment. make all green with two gates that did not exist before, and four findings surfaced this pass, three caught by controls written this pass — one of them a 5.2x attribution error that would have reached the hub as a measured number. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 10:27:09 +02:00
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
UNATTRIBUTED = "UNATTRIBUTED"
OPEN_REMAINDER = "OPEN (uncommitted)"
class Abort(Exception):
"""A positive-control failure. Never degrades to a printed number."""
# ---------------------------------------------------------------- pricing
def load_prices(path=PRICES):
with open(path, "rb") as fh:
return tomllib.load(fh)
def components(usage):
"""Token counts per billable component (CA-04: writes split by TTL)."""
cc = usage.get("cache_creation") or {}
return {
"input": usage.get("input_tokens", 0),
"output": usage.get("output_tokens", 0),
"cache_read": usage.get("cache_read_input_tokens", 0),
"write_5m": cc.get("ephemeral_5m_input_tokens", 0),
"write_1h": cc.get("ephemeral_1h_input_tokens", 0),
}
def rates_at(prices, model, when=None):
"""Input/output rate in force for `model` at ISO instant `when` (CA-16).
Promotional rates are data, not comments. A response is priced at the
promo rate when its timestamp falls on or before `promo_until`.
"""
pr = prices.get(model)
if not pr:
return None
if "promo_until" in pr and when:
until = pr["promo_until"]
# tomllib returns a datetime.date for a bare TOML date.
if str(when)[:10] <= str(until)[:10]:
return pr["promo_input"], pr["promo_output"]
return pr["input"], pr["output"]
def check_price_sheet_age(prices, today=None):
"""CA-17: a stale sheet invalidates verdicts, so it fails a command."""
import datetime as _dt
recorded = prices.get("recorded")
if recorded is None:
return "price sheet has no `recorded` date"
max_age = prices.get("max_age_days", 90)
today = today or _dt.date.today()
if isinstance(recorded, _dt.datetime):
recorded = recorded.date()
age = (today - recorded).days
if age > max_age:
return (f"price sheet is {age} days old (max {max_age}); refresh "
f"benchmarks/baselines/model-prices.toml or new M-D2-CST "
f"`better` verdicts are invalid")
return None
def price_of(prices, model, toks, when=None):
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
"""USD for one response. Returns None when the model is unpriced (CA-05)."""
pr = prices.get(model)
if not pr:
return None
rin, rout = rates_at(prices, model, when)
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
cache = prices["cache"]
unit = rin / 1e6
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
return (
toks["input"] * unit
+ toks["output"] * rout / 1e6
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
+ toks["cache_read"] * unit * cache["read"]
+ toks["write_5m"] * unit * cache["write_5m"]
+ toks["write_1h"] * unit * cache["write_1h"]
)
# ------------------------------------------------------------- transcripts
def transcript_paths(slug):
"""Every transcript for the repo, including the subagent tree (CA-06)."""
base = os.path.expanduser(f"~/.claude/projects/{slug}")
return sorted(glob.glob(f"{base}/*.jsonl")) + sorted(
glob.glob(f"{base}/*/subagents/agent-*.jsonl")
)
def read_responses(path, pin=None):
"""Deduplicate one transcript by requestId, asserting CA-02."""
groups = collections.defaultdict(list)
for line in open(path):
try:
d = json.loads(line)
except json.JSONDecodeError:
continue
if d.get("type") != "assistant":
continue
usage = (d.get("message") or {}).get("usage")
if usage is None:
continue
ts = d.get("timestamp") or ""
if pin and ts > pin:
continue
groups[d.get("requestId")].append(d)
out = []
for rid, rows in groups.items():
# CA-02 positive control. Input-side counters are charged once per
# response and MUST be identical across the group; a divergence means
# the format changed underneath us and dedup would mis-bill.
#
# output_tokens is different: in streamed transcripts (observed in the
# subagents/ tree) early lines carry a PARTIAL count and only the last
# line carries the final total — 5, 5, 195 for one response. Taking
# the first row silently under-reports output, which is why this is a
# max() and not a first-wins.
seen_model = {r["message"].get("model") for r in rows}
if len(seen_model) != 1:
raise Abort(
f"{os.path.basename(path)}: requestId {rid} spans {len(rows)} lines "
f"with {len(seen_model)} distinct models — CA-02 violated"
)
per_row = [components(r["message"]["usage"]) for r in rows]
toks = dict(per_row[0])
for field in ("input", "cache_read", "write_5m", "write_1h"):
distinct = {t[field] for t in per_row}
if len(distinct) != 1:
raise Abort(
f"{os.path.basename(path)}: requestId {rid} has {len(distinct)} "
f"distinct values for {field} across {len(rows)} lines "
f"({sorted(distinct)}) — CA-02 violated; input-side counters "
f"are charged once per response and must not vary"
)
toks["output"] = max(t["output"] for t in per_row)
head = rows[0]
T04: specs/SessionShape.md — compaction is the lever, not session length The task's original premise was wrong and is recorded rather than deleted. It was written to prescribe one task per session; measurement says the variable is context, not turn count. Measured: - compaction cut context 27x (542,991 -> 19,974) and cost/turn 3.1x; the 202 turns after C1 cost less than half the 136 before it - a turn costs $0.010 at 20k context and $0.270 at 540k - break-even for a compaction is 2-11 turns, so: compact whenever context exceeds ~300k and work remains - a fresh session is NOT free -- cold start floors at ~51k and must then re-read the artifacts a compact summary already holds (~66k). Prefer compaction to continue work; prefer a fresh session when the task changes, because then prior context is pure overhead. cb-cost now emits SH-1..SH-3 so the targets come from the instrument rather than from analysis, per InnerLoop v1.1. All three are UNMET (mean context 232,982 vs 200,000; p90 492,042 vs 300,000; batching 7.8% vs 20%) and are reported unmet rather than retargeted -- retargeting in the commit that first measures is precisely what T07 exists to prevent. Eighth error instance found while writing this: CB-WP-0001's claim that "0 of 330 tool calls were batched" is wrong. 330 was the count of single-call responses, not the total; 31 responses batched, covering 76 calls. It was carried into this workplan unverified. Trusted-arithmetic class -- the one the T01 audit flagged as having no executable defence, confirming that finding within hours of making it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 09:19:32 +02:00
# Tool calls are spread across the group's lines, so they are counted
# over the whole group — one response may carry several (SS-05).
CB-RES-0003 + CB-WP-0004: 38% of pass cost is mechanical turns Review of where token-priced turns did work a deterministic tool could do. Method: classify every turn in both transcripts by the tool calls it made. The classifier is committed in tools/cb-cost.py and emitted by `make cost-mix`, so the baseline is reproducible and the same command can later falsify the predictions. mech environment setup 84 turns $15.33 mech ad-hoc text patching 75 turns $13.86 git 37 turns $13.85 mech hub task status 25 turns $ 7.46 mech orientation / inspect 49 turns $ 6.87 hub other 32 turns $ 6.22 mech ad-hoc transcript 39 turns $ 4.56 mech workplan status edit 21 turns $ 4.06 MECHANICAL (dedup) 290 turns $51.26 = 38% of pass Largest category is `cd` and `export PATH` -- pure friction, and dep-weight.py already patched it at the leaf, which is evidence it was noticed and fixed in the wrong place. Second is heredocs string-patching markdown, which is also the mechanism behind duplicated-fact drift, the error class InnerLoop v1.2 names and cannot gate. Explicitly NOT automated: git (37 turns, $13.85) is mostly commit message authorship -- the highest-output turns in the corpus and the project's reasoning record. Automating it would save money and destroy what makes corrections cheap. CB-WP-0004 implements five candidates and predicts $33-41 recovery (25-30%), below the 38% measured share on purpose: some inspection and patching is genuinely exploratory. The control loop is the deliverable, not a formality. T05 tests three things and must report all: did mechanical turns disappear, did they RELOCATE into prose, and did quality hold. If mechanical turns fall and prose rises by as much, the saving is zero and that is the result to publish. Also a self-indictment worth recording: every hub update_task_status in this project carried hand-typed token estimates, in a repo whose central finding is that estimated token counts are worthless. T02 fixes it by reading measured values from cb-cost. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 09:49:57 +02:00
blocks = [c for r in rows for c in (r["message"].get("content") or [])
if c.get("type") == "tool_use"]
tool_calls = len(blocks)
cats = sorted({
c for c in (classify_tool(b.get("name"), b.get("input") or {})
for b in blocks) if c
})
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
out.append(
{
"request_id": rid,
"model": head["message"].get("model"),
"timestamp": head.get("timestamp") or "",
"session": head.get("sessionId") or os.path.basename(path),
"toks": toks,
T04: specs/SessionShape.md — compaction is the lever, not session length The task's original premise was wrong and is recorded rather than deleted. It was written to prescribe one task per session; measurement says the variable is context, not turn count. Measured: - compaction cut context 27x (542,991 -> 19,974) and cost/turn 3.1x; the 202 turns after C1 cost less than half the 136 before it - a turn costs $0.010 at 20k context and $0.270 at 540k - break-even for a compaction is 2-11 turns, so: compact whenever context exceeds ~300k and work remains - a fresh session is NOT free -- cold start floors at ~51k and must then re-read the artifacts a compact summary already holds (~66k). Prefer compaction to continue work; prefer a fresh session when the task changes, because then prior context is pure overhead. cb-cost now emits SH-1..SH-3 so the targets come from the instrument rather than from analysis, per InnerLoop v1.1. All three are UNMET (mean context 232,982 vs 200,000; p90 492,042 vs 300,000; batching 7.8% vs 20%) and are reported unmet rather than retargeted -- retargeting in the commit that first measures is precisely what T07 exists to prevent. Eighth error instance found while writing this: CB-WP-0001's claim that "0 of 330 tool calls were batched" is wrong. 330 was the count of single-call responses, not the total; 31 responses batched, covering 76 calls. It was carried into this workplan unverified. Trusted-arithmetic class -- the one the T01 audit flagged as having no executable defence, confirming that finding within hours of making it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 09:19:32 +02:00
"tool_calls": tool_calls,
CB-RES-0003 + CB-WP-0004: 38% of pass cost is mechanical turns Review of where token-priced turns did work a deterministic tool could do. Method: classify every turn in both transcripts by the tool calls it made. The classifier is committed in tools/cb-cost.py and emitted by `make cost-mix`, so the baseline is reproducible and the same command can later falsify the predictions. mech environment setup 84 turns $15.33 mech ad-hoc text patching 75 turns $13.86 git 37 turns $13.85 mech hub task status 25 turns $ 7.46 mech orientation / inspect 49 turns $ 6.87 hub other 32 turns $ 6.22 mech ad-hoc transcript 39 turns $ 4.56 mech workplan status edit 21 turns $ 4.06 MECHANICAL (dedup) 290 turns $51.26 = 38% of pass Largest category is `cd` and `export PATH` -- pure friction, and dep-weight.py already patched it at the leaf, which is evidence it was noticed and fixed in the wrong place. Second is heredocs string-patching markdown, which is also the mechanism behind duplicated-fact drift, the error class InnerLoop v1.2 names and cannot gate. Explicitly NOT automated: git (37 turns, $13.85) is mostly commit message authorship -- the highest-output turns in the corpus and the project's reasoning record. Automating it would save money and destroy what makes corrections cheap. CB-WP-0004 implements five candidates and predicts $33-41 recovery (25-30%), below the 38% measured share on purpose: some inspection and patching is genuinely exploratory. The control loop is the deliverable, not a formality. T05 tests three things and must report all: did mechanical turns disappear, did they RELOCATE into prose, and did quality hold. If mechanical turns fall and prose rises by as much, the saving is zero and that is the result to publish. Also a self-indictment worth recording: every hub update_task_status in this project carried hand-typed token estimates, in a repo whose central finding is that estimated token counts are worthless. T02 fixes it by reading measured values from cb-cost. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 09:49:57 +02:00
"categories": cats,
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
"subagent": "/subagents/" in path,
}
)
return out
CB-RES-0003 + CB-WP-0004: 38% of pass cost is mechanical turns Review of where token-priced turns did work a deterministic tool could do. Method: classify every turn in both transcripts by the tool calls it made. The classifier is committed in tools/cb-cost.py and emitted by `make cost-mix`, so the baseline is reproducible and the same command can later falsify the predictions. mech environment setup 84 turns $15.33 mech ad-hoc text patching 75 turns $13.86 git 37 turns $13.85 mech hub task status 25 turns $ 7.46 mech orientation / inspect 49 turns $ 6.87 hub other 32 turns $ 6.22 mech ad-hoc transcript 39 turns $ 4.56 mech workplan status edit 21 turns $ 4.06 MECHANICAL (dedup) 290 turns $51.26 = 38% of pass Largest category is `cd` and `export PATH` -- pure friction, and dep-weight.py already patched it at the leaf, which is evidence it was noticed and fixed in the wrong place. Second is heredocs string-patching markdown, which is also the mechanism behind duplicated-fact drift, the error class InnerLoop v1.2 names and cannot gate. Explicitly NOT automated: git (37 turns, $13.85) is mostly commit message authorship -- the highest-output turns in the corpus and the project's reasoning record. Automating it would save money and destroy what makes corrections cheap. CB-WP-0004 implements five candidates and predicts $33-41 recovery (25-30%), below the 38% measured share on purpose: some inspection and patching is genuinely exploratory. The control loop is the deliverable, not a formality. T05 tests three things and must report all: did mechanical turns disappear, did they RELOCATE into prose, and did quality hold. If mechanical turns fall and prose rises by as much, the saving is zero and that is the result to publish. Also a self-indictment worth recording: every hub update_task_status in this project carried hand-typed token estimates, in a repo whose central finding is that estimated token counts are worthless. T02 fixes it by reading measured values from cb-cost. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 09:49:57 +02:00
# CB-RES-0003: which turns are mechanical (a deterministic tool could do
# them) versus judgment (only an agent can). The baseline for measuring
# whether automation actually removes turns rather than relocating them.
def classify_tool(name, inp):
if name == "mcp__dev-hub__update_task_status":
return "hub task status"
if name.startswith("mcp__dev-hub__"):
return "hub other"
if name != "Bash":
return None
cmd = (inp.get("command") or "").strip()
if not cmd:
return None
if "python3 - <<" in cmd:
if "status: todo" in cmd or "status: done" in cmd:
return "workplan status edit"
if "jsonl" in cmd or "requestId" in cmd or "usage" in cmd:
return "ad-hoc transcript analysis"
return "ad-hoc text patching"
if cmd.startswith(("cd ", "export ")):
return "environment setup"
if cmd.split()[0] in ("grep", "ls", "wc", "sed", "head", "tail", "cat", "find"):
return "orientation / inspect"
if cmd.startswith("git "):
return "git"
if "make " in cmd:
return "make (gates)"
return None
# Categories a deterministic tool could plausibly own. Judgment-bearing
# categories (git commit messages, make gates) are excluded deliberately.
MECHANICAL = frozenset({
"environment setup", "ad-hoc text patching", "orientation / inspect",
"ad-hoc transcript analysis", "hub task status", "workplan status edit",
})
T04: specs/SessionShape.md — compaction is the lever, not session length The task's original premise was wrong and is recorded rather than deleted. It was written to prescribe one task per session; measurement says the variable is context, not turn count. Measured: - compaction cut context 27x (542,991 -> 19,974) and cost/turn 3.1x; the 202 turns after C1 cost less than half the 136 before it - a turn costs $0.010 at 20k context and $0.270 at 540k - break-even for a compaction is 2-11 turns, so: compact whenever context exceeds ~300k and work remains - a fresh session is NOT free -- cold start floors at ~51k and must then re-read the artifacts a compact summary already holds (~66k). Prefer compaction to continue work; prefer a fresh session when the task changes, because then prior context is pure overhead. cb-cost now emits SH-1..SH-3 so the targets come from the instrument rather than from analysis, per InnerLoop v1.1. All three are UNMET (mean context 232,982 vs 200,000; p90 492,042 vs 300,000; batching 7.8% vs 20%) and are reported unmet rather than retargeted -- retargeting in the commit that first measures is precisely what T07 exists to prevent. Eighth error instance found while writing this: CB-WP-0001's claim that "0 of 330 tool calls were batched" is wrong. 330 was the count of single-call responses, not the total; 31 responses batched, covering 76 calls. It was carried into this workplan unverified. Trusted-arithmetic class -- the one the T01 audit flagged as having no executable defence, confirming that finding within hours of making it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 09:19:32 +02:00
def session_shape(responses):
"""SH-1..SH-3 from specs/SessionShape.md."""
import statistics
ctx = sorted(r["toks"]["cache_read"] for r in responses)
with_tools = [r for r in responses if r["tool_calls"] > 0]
batched = [r for r in with_tools if r["tool_calls"] > 1]
calls = sum(r["tool_calls"] for r in with_tools)
pct = statistics.quantiles(ctx, n=100) if len(ctx) > 1 else [ctx[0]] * 99
return {
"SH-1_mean_context": statistics.mean(ctx) if ctx else 0,
"SH-2_p90_context": pct[89],
"SH-3_batching_rate": (len(batched) / len(with_tools)) if with_tools else 0.0,
"p50_context": pct[49],
"responses_with_tools": len(with_tools),
"tool_calls": calls,
"calls_in_batched_turns": calls - (len(with_tools) - len(batched)),
}
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
# ------------------------------------------------------------- attribution
def commit_index(pin=None):
"""(utc_time, subject) for each commit, oldest first (CA-09)."""
fmt = subprocess.run(
["git", "-C", REPO, "log", "--format=%cI|%s", "--reverse"],
capture_output=True,
text=True,
check=True,
).stdout.splitlines()
rows = []
for line in fmt:
iso, _, subject = line.partition("|")
# CA-09: convert, never subtract a fixed offset — this repo has two.
utc = (
datetime.datetime.fromisoformat(iso)
.astimezone(datetime.timezone.utc)
.isoformat()
.replace("+00:00", "Z")
)
rows.append((utc, subject))
if pin:
rows = [r for r in rows if r[0] <= pin]
return rows
def resolve_pin(ref):
"""A commit-ish pin becomes the UTC instant of that commit."""
if not ref:
return None
if ref.endswith("Z"):
return ref
iso = subprocess.run(
["git", "-C", REPO, "log", "-1", "--format=%cI", ref],
capture_output=True,
text=True,
check=True,
).stdout.strip()
return (
datetime.datetime.fromisoformat(iso)
.astimezone(datetime.timezone.utc)
.isoformat()
.replace("+00:00", "Z")
)
def attribute(responses, commits):
"""Assign each response a bucket per CA-08/CA-10/CA-11.
Intervals are ending-at-commit: (prev_commit, this_commit]. Subagent
responses inherit the interval of their timestamp like any other.
"""
label_for = []
prev = ""
for ts, subject in commits:
CB-WP-0004 T02: make task-done — close a task on measured numbers Replaces the three hand-done steps of a task close (46 turns, $11.52 per CB-RES-0003): the heredoc flipping status in the workplan file, the hand-written hub call, and the hand-typed token counts. The third is the reason this task exists. Every update_task_status this repo produced carried estimated tokens_in/tokens_out — in a project whose central finding is that estimated token counts are worthless. task-done reads the measured figure from the transcripts, or refuses; there is no path through it that emits an estimate. cb-cost gains by_task_detail: cost, response count, model histogram and token components per task. task-done imports cb-cost rather than parsing its printed table, so the hub figure is not a copy that can drift from its source. The positive control found a real defect before the tool ran once. Attribution keyed on a bare T\d\d from the commit subject, so CB-WP-0002 T01, CB-WP-0003 T01 and CB-WP-0004 T01 shared a bucket: the self-test reported $12.10 for "T01" where the qualified figure is $2.33. That 5.2x overstatement would have been pushed to the hub as a *measured* number — the same fiction in a new form. task_label() now keys qualified subjects on the full id and leaves unqualified ones bare rather than retro-assigning them to a workplan. The pinned $93.15 benchmark is unchanged, so historical attribution was not disturbed. Fourth instance of trusted arithmetic: a number believed because a program produced it rather than a hand. Refusals, all exercised by --self-test: unknown id, typo'd id, already-done task, missing state_hub_task_id, no measured spend, and a status flip that produced no change. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 10:17:51 +02:00
label_for.append((prev, ts, task_label(subject) or UNATTRIBUTED))
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
prev = ts
last = commits[-1][0] if commits else ""
for r in responses:
ts = r["timestamp"]
if last and ts > last:
r["task"] = OPEN_REMAINDER # CA-11
continue
r["task"] = UNATTRIBUTED
for lo, hi, label in label_for:
if lo < ts <= hi:
r["task"] = label
break
return responses
# ----------------------------------------------------------------- report
CB-WP-0004 T05: control loop — 6 points recovered, not 25-30 cb-cost gains --since, so the baseline (--pin 578dcbe, 662 responses, $135.60) and this pass (--since 578dcbe, 83 responses, $7.82) are two disjoint windows over the same transcripts. Every verdict is on share of pass, since the windows differ 17x in size. Test 1 — did mechanical turns disappear? Partly. Mechanical share fell 38.2% -> 32.4%. Six points against a predicted 25-30; reported unmet, and no target was moved in this commit. environment setup 11.5% -> 0.6% (85 turns -> 1) met, decisively hub + workplan 8.5% -> 0.0% (46 turns -> 0) met text patching 10.4% -> 9.6% not met orientation 5.1% -> 21.2% not met, worse The confound is stated before any defence of the numbers: this is the pass that built the tools, and the two categories that missed are exactly the two whose tools were under construction. The clean test is the next pass, and it is carried forward rather than waived. Test 2 — did the work relocate? Not into prose. Output tokens per response fell 896 -> 681. Output's rising share of cost is a shrinking denominator, not more writing. Cost per response halved and the evidence refuses to claim it: that is compaction (mean context 232,982 -> 117,822), and attributing it to tooling would repeat CB-WP-0002's original error in a new direction. Test 3 — did quality hold? Yes, recorded as explicit judgment. make all green with two gates that did not exist before, and four findings surfaced this pass, three caught by controls written this pass — one of them a 5.2x attribution error that would have reached the hub as a measured number. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 10:27:09 +02:00
def collect(slug, pin_ref=None, since_ref=None):
"""Report over (since_ref, pin_ref]. Both ends optional.
`since` exists for CB-WP-0004 T05: comparing a pass against the pass
that measured it needs two disjoint windows over the same transcripts,
not two whole-corpus totals. Attribution and reconciliation are
unchanged the window only selects which responses are counted.
"""
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
prices = load_prices()
pin = resolve_pin(pin_ref)
CB-WP-0004 T05: control loop — 6 points recovered, not 25-30 cb-cost gains --since, so the baseline (--pin 578dcbe, 662 responses, $135.60) and this pass (--since 578dcbe, 83 responses, $7.82) are two disjoint windows over the same transcripts. Every verdict is on share of pass, since the windows differ 17x in size. Test 1 — did mechanical turns disappear? Partly. Mechanical share fell 38.2% -> 32.4%. Six points against a predicted 25-30; reported unmet, and no target was moved in this commit. environment setup 11.5% -> 0.6% (85 turns -> 1) met, decisively hub + workplan 8.5% -> 0.0% (46 turns -> 0) met text patching 10.4% -> 9.6% not met orientation 5.1% -> 21.2% not met, worse The confound is stated before any defence of the numbers: this is the pass that built the tools, and the two categories that missed are exactly the two whose tools were under construction. The clean test is the next pass, and it is carried forward rather than waived. Test 2 — did the work relocate? Not into prose. Output tokens per response fell 896 -> 681. Output's rising share of cost is a shrinking denominator, not more writing. Cost per response halved and the evidence refuses to claim it: that is compaction (mean context 232,982 -> 117,822), and attributing it to tooling would repeat CB-WP-0002's original error in a new direction. Test 3 — did quality hold? Yes, recorded as explicit judgment. make all green with two gates that did not exist before, and four findings surfaced this pass, three caught by controls written this pass — one of them a 5.2x attribution error that would have reached the hub as a measured number. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 10:27:09 +02:00
since = resolve_pin(since_ref)
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
paths = transcript_paths(slug)
if not paths:
raise Abort(f"no transcripts found for {slug}")
responses = []
for p in paths:
responses.extend(read_responses(p, pin))
CB-WP-0004 T05: control loop — 6 points recovered, not 25-30 cb-cost gains --since, so the baseline (--pin 578dcbe, 662 responses, $135.60) and this pass (--since 578dcbe, 83 responses, $7.82) are two disjoint windows over the same transcripts. Every verdict is on share of pass, since the windows differ 17x in size. Test 1 — did mechanical turns disappear? Partly. Mechanical share fell 38.2% -> 32.4%. Six points against a predicted 25-30; reported unmet, and no target was moved in this commit. environment setup 11.5% -> 0.6% (85 turns -> 1) met, decisively hub + workplan 8.5% -> 0.0% (46 turns -> 0) met text patching 10.4% -> 9.6% not met orientation 5.1% -> 21.2% not met, worse The confound is stated before any defence of the numbers: this is the pass that built the tools, and the two categories that missed are exactly the two whose tools were under construction. The clean test is the next pass, and it is carried forward rather than waived. Test 2 — did the work relocate? Not into prose. Output tokens per response fell 896 -> 681. Output's rising share of cost is a shrinking denominator, not more writing. Cost per response halved and the evidence refuses to claim it: that is compaction (mean context 232,982 -> 117,822), and attributing it to tooling would repeat CB-WP-0002's original error in a new direction. Test 3 — did quality hold? Yes, recorded as explicit judgment. make all green with two gates that did not exist before, and four findings surfaced this pass, three caught by controls written this pass — one of them a 5.2x attribution error that would have reached the hub as a measured number. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 10:27:09 +02:00
if since:
responses = [r for r in responses if r["timestamp"] > since]
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
if not responses:
# Positive control: a run that measured nothing must not report $0.00
# as though it were an answer.
raise Abort(f"no responses in {len(paths)} transcript(s) — refusing to report")
stale = check_price_sheet_age(prices)
if stale:
raise Abort(stale)
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
for r in responses:
r["cost"] = price_of(prices, r["model"], r["toks"], r["timestamp"])
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
CB-WP-0007 T01+T03: window the metric, budget it, cap meta at 25% Scope cut first, on the maintainer's decision after a spend review: the project is 38% product / 62% loop-meta, cost per response is 2.9x worse than its best window, and INTENT stage 0 still lacks a CLI player and bots. CB-WP-0005 and CB-WP-0006 cost ~$74 — 31% of all spend — for zero measured efficiency gain. T02 and T04 are cancelled unstarted. T01: SH-1/SH-2/SH-3 now report over the window since the last commit, and the cumulative figure is retained but labelled "history, NOT the metric". The prediction held decisively — window 655,744 mean context against cumulative 255,307, a 2.6x gap against a 20% refutation threshold. A cumulative mean over 1,094 responses cannot detect a worsening trend because the history outvotes the present. T03: `make shape-budget`, modelled on CB-01/CB-02. Soft thresholds are the existing SessionShape targets; hard is 1.5x, set before the next measurement per §Step 4. Deliberately not in `make all` — failing the build on context would block committing, and committing is what closes the attribution window and is the natural point to compact, so a gate that blocks the remedy is a trap. It fires HARD on its first run: 656,574 against a 300,000 ceiling. InnerLoop v1.5 establishes the soft 25% meta budget. Workplans declare kind: product|meta|mixed and `make status` reports the share; mixed splits 50/50 and says so. Soft on purpose — a task already started may be finished, because stopping mid-task to satisfy a ratio wastes the work. What it forbids is opening new meta work above the line. A pass that exceeds it must say so in its evidence and name the product work displaced. First reading: 68% OVER, of $74.22 attributed. Product reads $0.00 because the only product workplan, CB-WP-0001, predates qualified task ids and its bare T## labels collide across passes — stated in the output rather than papered over. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-01 14:12:07 +02:00
commits = commit_index(pin)
attribute(responses, commits)
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
by_task = collections.defaultdict(float)
CB-WP-0004 T02: make task-done — close a task on measured numbers Replaces the three hand-done steps of a task close (46 turns, $11.52 per CB-RES-0003): the heredoc flipping status in the workplan file, the hand-written hub call, and the hand-typed token counts. The third is the reason this task exists. Every update_task_status this repo produced carried estimated tokens_in/tokens_out — in a project whose central finding is that estimated token counts are worthless. task-done reads the measured figure from the transcripts, or refuses; there is no path through it that emits an estimate. cb-cost gains by_task_detail: cost, response count, model histogram and token components per task. task-done imports cb-cost rather than parsing its printed table, so the hub figure is not a copy that can drift from its source. The positive control found a real defect before the tool ran once. Attribution keyed on a bare T\d\d from the commit subject, so CB-WP-0002 T01, CB-WP-0003 T01 and CB-WP-0004 T01 shared a bucket: the self-test reported $12.10 for "T01" where the qualified figure is $2.33. That 5.2x overstatement would have been pushed to the hub as a *measured* number — the same fiction in a new form. task_label() now keys qualified subjects on the full id and leaves unqualified ones bare rather than retro-assigning them to a workplan. The pinned $93.15 benchmark is unchanged, so historical attribution was not disturbed. Fourth instance of trusted arithmetic: a number believed because a program produced it rather than a hand. Refusals, all exercised by --self-test: unknown id, typo'd id, already-done task, missing state_hub_task_id, no measured spend, and a status flip that produced no change. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 10:17:51 +02:00
# T02: per-task token detail, so a task close can report *measured*
# tokens. Every update_task_status in this project before T02 carried
# hand-typed estimates — in a repo whose finding is that estimated
# token counts are worthless.
task_detail = collections.defaultdict(
lambda: {"cost": 0.0, "responses": 0, "models": collections.Counter(),
"toks": collections.Counter()})
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
by_component = collections.Counter()
by_component_cost = collections.defaultdict(float)
by_model = collections.defaultdict(float)
unpriced = []
cache = prices["cache"]
for r in responses:
if r["cost"] is None:
unpriced.append(r)
continue
by_task[r["task"]] += r["cost"]
CB-WP-0004 T02: make task-done — close a task on measured numbers Replaces the three hand-done steps of a task close (46 turns, $11.52 per CB-RES-0003): the heredoc flipping status in the workplan file, the hand-written hub call, and the hand-typed token counts. The third is the reason this task exists. Every update_task_status this repo produced carried estimated tokens_in/tokens_out — in a project whose central finding is that estimated token counts are worthless. task-done reads the measured figure from the transcripts, or refuses; there is no path through it that emits an estimate. cb-cost gains by_task_detail: cost, response count, model histogram and token components per task. task-done imports cb-cost rather than parsing its printed table, so the hub figure is not a copy that can drift from its source. The positive control found a real defect before the tool ran once. Attribution keyed on a bare T\d\d from the commit subject, so CB-WP-0002 T01, CB-WP-0003 T01 and CB-WP-0004 T01 shared a bucket: the self-test reported $12.10 for "T01" where the qualified figure is $2.33. That 5.2x overstatement would have been pushed to the hub as a *measured* number — the same fiction in a new form. task_label() now keys qualified subjects on the full id and leaves unqualified ones bare rather than retro-assigning them to a workplan. The pinned $93.15 benchmark is unchanged, so historical attribution was not disturbed. Fourth instance of trusted arithmetic: a number believed because a program produced it rather than a hand. Refusals, all exercised by --self-test: unknown id, typo'd id, already-done task, missing state_hub_task_id, no measured spend, and a status flip that produced no change. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 10:17:51 +02:00
d = task_detail[r["task"]]
d["cost"] += r["cost"]
d["responses"] += 1
d["models"][r["model"]] += 1
d["toks"].update(r["toks"])
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
by_model[r["model"]] += r["cost"]
rin, rout = rates_at(prices, r["model"], r["timestamp"])
unit = rin / 1e6
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
rates = {
"input": unit,
"output": rout / 1e6,
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
"cache_read": unit * cache["read"],
"write_5m": unit * cache["write_5m"],
"write_1h": unit * cache["write_1h"],
}
for k, n in r["toks"].items():
by_component[k] += n
by_component_cost[k] += n * rates[k]
total = sum(by_task.values())
# CA-14: reconciliation is asserted, not assumed.
residual = total - sum(by_component_cost.values())
if abs(residual) > 0.005:
raise Abort(
f"reconciliation failed: task total ${total:,.4f} vs component total "
f"${sum(by_component_cost.values()):,.4f} (residual ${residual:,.4f})"
)
CB-RES-0003 + CB-WP-0004: 38% of pass cost is mechanical turns Review of where token-priced turns did work a deterministic tool could do. Method: classify every turn in both transcripts by the tool calls it made. The classifier is committed in tools/cb-cost.py and emitted by `make cost-mix`, so the baseline is reproducible and the same command can later falsify the predictions. mech environment setup 84 turns $15.33 mech ad-hoc text patching 75 turns $13.86 git 37 turns $13.85 mech hub task status 25 turns $ 7.46 mech orientation / inspect 49 turns $ 6.87 hub other 32 turns $ 6.22 mech ad-hoc transcript 39 turns $ 4.56 mech workplan status edit 21 turns $ 4.06 MECHANICAL (dedup) 290 turns $51.26 = 38% of pass Largest category is `cd` and `export PATH` -- pure friction, and dep-weight.py already patched it at the leaf, which is evidence it was noticed and fixed in the wrong place. Second is heredocs string-patching markdown, which is also the mechanism behind duplicated-fact drift, the error class InnerLoop v1.2 names and cannot gate. Explicitly NOT automated: git (37 turns, $13.85) is mostly commit message authorship -- the highest-output turns in the corpus and the project's reasoning record. Automating it would save money and destroy what makes corrections cheap. CB-WP-0004 implements five candidates and predicts $33-41 recovery (25-30%), below the 38% measured share on purpose: some inspection and patching is genuinely exploratory. The control loop is the deliverable, not a formality. T05 tests three things and must report all: did mechanical turns disappear, did they RELOCATE into prose, and did quality hold. If mechanical turns fall and prose rises by as much, the saving is zero and that is the result to publish. Also a self-indictment worth recording: every hub update_task_status in this project carried hand-typed token estimates, in a repo whose central finding is that estimated token counts are worthless. T02 fixes it by reading measured values from cb-cost. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 09:49:57 +02:00
# Tool mix: a turn's whole cost is charged to each category it touched,
# so columns may overlap and must not be summed as if disjoint.
mix_turns, mix_cost = collections.Counter(), collections.defaultdict(float)
for r in responses:
for c in r.get("categories") or []:
mix_turns[c] += 1
mix_cost[c] += r["cost"] or 0.0
mech = [r for r in responses
if set(r.get("categories") or []) & MECHANICAL]
CB-WP-0007 T01+T03: window the metric, budget it, cap meta at 25% Scope cut first, on the maintainer's decision after a spend review: the project is 38% product / 62% loop-meta, cost per response is 2.9x worse than its best window, and INTENT stage 0 still lacks a CLI player and bots. CB-WP-0005 and CB-WP-0006 cost ~$74 — 31% of all spend — for zero measured efficiency gain. T02 and T04 are cancelled unstarted. T01: SH-1/SH-2/SH-3 now report over the window since the last commit, and the cumulative figure is retained but labelled "history, NOT the metric". The prediction held decisively — window 655,744 mean context against cumulative 255,307, a 2.6x gap against a 20% refutation threshold. A cumulative mean over 1,094 responses cannot detect a worsening trend because the history outvotes the present. T03: `make shape-budget`, modelled on CB-01/CB-02. Soft thresholds are the existing SessionShape targets; hard is 1.5x, set before the next measurement per §Step 4. Deliberately not in `make all` — failing the build on context would block committing, and committing is what closes the attribution window and is the natural point to compact, so a gate that blocks the remedy is a trap. It fires HARD on its first run: 656,574 against a 300,000 ceiling. InnerLoop v1.5 establishes the soft 25% meta budget. Workplans declare kind: product|meta|mixed and `make status` reports the share; mixed splits 50/50 and says so. Soft on purpose — a task already started may be finished, because stopping mid-task to satisfy a ratio wastes the work. What it forbids is opening new meta work above the line. A pass that exceeds it must say so in its evidence and name the product work displaced. First reading: 68% OVER, of $74.22 attributed. Product reads $0.00 because the only product workplan, CB-WP-0001, predates qualified task ids and its bare T## labels collide across passes — stated in the output rather than papered over. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-01 14:12:07 +02:00
# The window the SH-* targets compare against: responses since the
# last commit when unpinned, or the whole pinned range when pinned
# (a pin is already a window someone chose deliberately).
if pin or since:
window_responses, window_label = responses, "the pinned/--since range"
else:
last = commits[-1][0] if commits else ""
window_responses = [r for r in responses if last and r["timestamp"] > last]
window_label = "since the last commit"
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
sub = sum(r["cost"] or 0 for r in responses if r["subagent"])
return {
T04: specs/SessionShape.md — compaction is the lever, not session length The task's original premise was wrong and is recorded rather than deleted. It was written to prescribe one task per session; measurement says the variable is context, not turn count. Measured: - compaction cut context 27x (542,991 -> 19,974) and cost/turn 3.1x; the 202 turns after C1 cost less than half the 136 before it - a turn costs $0.010 at 20k context and $0.270 at 540k - break-even for a compaction is 2-11 turns, so: compact whenever context exceeds ~300k and work remains - a fresh session is NOT free -- cold start floors at ~51k and must then re-read the artifacts a compact summary already holds (~66k). Prefer compaction to continue work; prefer a fresh session when the task changes, because then prior context is pure overhead. cb-cost now emits SH-1..SH-3 so the targets come from the instrument rather than from analysis, per InnerLoop v1.1. All three are UNMET (mean context 232,982 vs 200,000; p90 492,042 vs 300,000; batching 7.8% vs 20%) and are reported unmet rather than retargeted -- retargeting in the commit that first measures is precisely what T07 exists to prevent. Eighth error instance found while writing this: CB-WP-0001's claim that "0 of 330 tool calls were batched" is wrong. 330 was the count of single-call responses, not the total; 31 responses batched, covering 76 calls. It was carried into this workplan unverified. Trusted-arithmetic class -- the one the T01 audit flagged as having no executable defence, confirming that finding within hours of making it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 09:19:32 +02:00
"session_shape": session_shape(responses),
CB-WP-0007 T01+T03: window the metric, budget it, cap meta at 25% Scope cut first, on the maintainer's decision after a spend review: the project is 38% product / 62% loop-meta, cost per response is 2.9x worse than its best window, and INTENT stage 0 still lacks a CLI player and bots. CB-WP-0005 and CB-WP-0006 cost ~$74 — 31% of all spend — for zero measured efficiency gain. T02 and T04 are cancelled unstarted. T01: SH-1/SH-2/SH-3 now report over the window since the last commit, and the cumulative figure is retained but labelled "history, NOT the metric". The prediction held decisively — window 655,744 mean context against cumulative 255,307, a 2.6x gap against a 20% refutation threshold. A cumulative mean over 1,094 responses cannot detect a worsening trend because the history outvotes the present. T03: `make shape-budget`, modelled on CB-01/CB-02. Soft thresholds are the existing SessionShape targets; hard is 1.5x, set before the next measurement per §Step 4. Deliberately not in `make all` — failing the build on context would block committing, and committing is what closes the attribution window and is the natural point to compact, so a gate that blocks the remedy is a trap. It fires HARD on its first run: 656,574 against a 300,000 ceiling. InnerLoop v1.5 establishes the soft 25% meta budget. Workplans declare kind: product|meta|mixed and `make status` reports the share; mixed splits 50/50 and says so. Soft on purpose — a task already started may be finished, because stopping mid-task to satisfy a ratio wastes the work. What it forbids is opening new meta work above the line. A pass that exceeds it must say so in its evidence and name the product work displaced. First reading: 68% OVER, of $74.22 attributed. Product reads $0.00 because the only product workplan, CB-WP-0001, predates qualified task ids and its bare T## labels collide across passes — stated in the output rather than papered over. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-01 14:12:07 +02:00
# CB-WP-0007 T01. SH-1/SH-2 as a cumulative mean over every
# response ever recorded cannot detect a worsening trend: the
# history outvotes the present. CB-WP-0006 ran at 503,464 mean
# context and the cumulative figure still printed 206,952.
# Both are reported; only the window is the metric.
"session_shape_window": session_shape(window_responses)
if window_responses else None,
"window_responses": len(window_responses),
"window_label": window_label,
CB-RES-0003 + CB-WP-0004: 38% of pass cost is mechanical turns Review of where token-priced turns did work a deterministic tool could do. Method: classify every turn in both transcripts by the tool calls it made. The classifier is committed in tools/cb-cost.py and emitted by `make cost-mix`, so the baseline is reproducible and the same command can later falsify the predictions. mech environment setup 84 turns $15.33 mech ad-hoc text patching 75 turns $13.86 git 37 turns $13.85 mech hub task status 25 turns $ 7.46 mech orientation / inspect 49 turns $ 6.87 hub other 32 turns $ 6.22 mech ad-hoc transcript 39 turns $ 4.56 mech workplan status edit 21 turns $ 4.06 MECHANICAL (dedup) 290 turns $51.26 = 38% of pass Largest category is `cd` and `export PATH` -- pure friction, and dep-weight.py already patched it at the leaf, which is evidence it was noticed and fixed in the wrong place. Second is heredocs string-patching markdown, which is also the mechanism behind duplicated-fact drift, the error class InnerLoop v1.2 names and cannot gate. Explicitly NOT automated: git (37 turns, $13.85) is mostly commit message authorship -- the highest-output turns in the corpus and the project's reasoning record. Automating it would save money and destroy what makes corrections cheap. CB-WP-0004 implements five candidates and predicts $33-41 recovery (25-30%), below the 38% measured share on purpose: some inspection and patching is genuinely exploratory. The control loop is the deliverable, not a formality. T05 tests three things and must report all: did mechanical turns disappear, did they RELOCATE into prose, and did quality hold. If mechanical turns fall and prose rises by as much, the saving is zero and that is the result to publish. Also a self-indictment worth recording: every hub update_task_status in this project carried hand-typed token estimates, in a repo whose central finding is that estimated token counts are worthless. T02 fixes it by reading measured values from cb-cost. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 09:49:57 +02:00
"tool_mix": {
"turns": dict(mix_turns),
"cost": dict(mix_cost),
"mechanical_turns": len(mech),
"mechanical_cost": sum(r["cost"] or 0 for r in mech),
},
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
"slug": slug,
"pin": pin,
CB-WP-0004 T05: control loop — 6 points recovered, not 25-30 cb-cost gains --since, so the baseline (--pin 578dcbe, 662 responses, $135.60) and this pass (--since 578dcbe, 83 responses, $7.82) are two disjoint windows over the same transcripts. Every verdict is on share of pass, since the windows differ 17x in size. Test 1 — did mechanical turns disappear? Partly. Mechanical share fell 38.2% -> 32.4%. Six points against a predicted 25-30; reported unmet, and no target was moved in this commit. environment setup 11.5% -> 0.6% (85 turns -> 1) met, decisively hub + workplan 8.5% -> 0.0% (46 turns -> 0) met text patching 10.4% -> 9.6% not met orientation 5.1% -> 21.2% not met, worse The confound is stated before any defence of the numbers: this is the pass that built the tools, and the two categories that missed are exactly the two whose tools were under construction. The clean test is the next pass, and it is carried forward rather than waived. Test 2 — did the work relocate? Not into prose. Output tokens per response fell 896 -> 681. Output's rising share of cost is a shrinking denominator, not more writing. Cost per response halved and the evidence refuses to claim it: that is compaction (mean context 232,982 -> 117,822), and attributing it to tooling would repeat CB-WP-0002's original error in a new direction. Test 3 — did quality hold? Yes, recorded as explicit judgment. make all green with two gates that did not exist before, and four findings surfaced this pass, three caught by controls written this pass — one of them a 5.2x attribution error that would have reached the hub as a measured number. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 10:27:09 +02:00
"since": since,
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
"responses": len(responses),
"transcripts": len(paths),
"total": total,
"subagent_total": sub,
"main_total": total - sub,
"by_task": dict(by_task),
CB-WP-0004 T02: make task-done — close a task on measured numbers Replaces the three hand-done steps of a task close (46 turns, $11.52 per CB-RES-0003): the heredoc flipping status in the workplan file, the hand-written hub call, and the hand-typed token counts. The third is the reason this task exists. Every update_task_status this repo produced carried estimated tokens_in/tokens_out — in a project whose central finding is that estimated token counts are worthless. task-done reads the measured figure from the transcripts, or refuses; there is no path through it that emits an estimate. cb-cost gains by_task_detail: cost, response count, model histogram and token components per task. task-done imports cb-cost rather than parsing its printed table, so the hub figure is not a copy that can drift from its source. The positive control found a real defect before the tool ran once. Attribution keyed on a bare T\d\d from the commit subject, so CB-WP-0002 T01, CB-WP-0003 T01 and CB-WP-0004 T01 shared a bucket: the self-test reported $12.10 for "T01" where the qualified figure is $2.33. That 5.2x overstatement would have been pushed to the hub as a *measured* number — the same fiction in a new form. task_label() now keys qualified subjects on the full id and leaves unqualified ones bare rather than retro-assigning them to a workplan. The pinned $93.15 benchmark is unchanged, so historical attribution was not disturbed. Fourth instance of trusted arithmetic: a number believed because a program produced it rather than a hand. Refusals, all exercised by --self-test: unknown id, typo'd id, already-done task, missing state_hub_task_id, no measured spend, and a status flip that produced no change. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 10:17:51 +02:00
"by_task_detail": {
k: {
"cost": v["cost"],
"responses": v["responses"],
# The model that ran the most responses for this task. The
# hub schema has one model field per event; a task split
# across models cannot be represented faithfully, so the
# full count travels in the note.
"model": v["models"].most_common(1)[0][0],
"models": dict(v["models"]),
"toks": dict(v["toks"]),
# CA-03/CA-04: the hub has no cache fields. tokens_in is
# the honest sum of everything billed on the input side.
"tokens_in": (v["toks"].get("input", 0)
+ v["toks"].get("cache_read", 0)
+ v["toks"].get("write_5m", 0)
+ v["toks"].get("write_1h", 0)),
"tokens_out": v["toks"].get("output", 0),
}
for k, v in task_detail.items()
},
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
"by_model": dict(by_model),
"tokens": dict(by_component),
"cost_by_component": dict(by_component_cost),
"unpriced": [
{"model": r["model"], "tokens": r["toks"]} for r in unpriced
],
"reconciled": True,
"residual": residual,
}
def pass_costs(slug, boundaries):
"""Cost per pass window, from one read of the transcripts.
CB-WP-0009 T01 / ADR-0006 D1: a budget must measure the window it
governs. `boundaries` is `[(label, start_iso)]` in ascending order;
each window runs to the next label's start, the last to now.
Responses before the first boundary land in `_before`.
Reads the transcripts **once**. Calling `collect()` per boundary
would re-read every transcript per window, and `make status` is
supposed to stay cheap enough that nobody replaces it with `ls`.
"""
prices = load_prices()
stale = check_price_sheet_age(prices)
if stale:
raise Abort(stale)
paths = transcript_paths(slug)
if not paths:
raise Abort(f"no transcripts found for {slug}")
responses = []
for path in paths:
responses.extend(read_responses(path, None))
if not responses:
raise Abort(f"no responses in {len(paths)} transcript(s) — refusing to report")
ordered = sorted(boundaries, key=lambda b: b[1])
out = {label: {"cost": 0.0, "responses": 0} for label, _ in ordered}
out["_before"] = {"cost": 0.0, "responses": 0}
for r in responses:
cost = price_of(prices, r["model"], r["toks"], r["timestamp"]) or 0.0
bucket = "_before"
for label, start in ordered:
if r["timestamp"] > start:
bucket = label
else:
break
out[bucket]["cost"] += cost
out[bucket]["responses"] += 1
# Positive control: a bucketing that placed nothing in any real window
# would report a confident 0% for every pass.
placed = sum(v["responses"] for k, v in out.items() if k != "_before")
if ordered and placed == 0:
raise Abort("pass_costs bucketed every response before the first "
"boundary — the boundaries are wrong, not the spend")
return out
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
def render(rep, by_task=False, composition=False):
print(f"M-D2-CST cost report — {rep['slug']}")
print(f" pin {rep['pin'] or '(none — live file, not reproducible)'}")
CB-WP-0004 T05: control loop — 6 points recovered, not 25-30 cb-cost gains --since, so the baseline (--pin 578dcbe, 662 responses, $135.60) and this pass (--since 578dcbe, 83 responses, $7.82) are two disjoint windows over the same transcripts. Every verdict is on share of pass, since the windows differ 17x in size. Test 1 — did mechanical turns disappear? Partly. Mechanical share fell 38.2% -> 32.4%. Six points against a predicted 25-30; reported unmet, and no target was moved in this commit. environment setup 11.5% -> 0.6% (85 turns -> 1) met, decisively hub + workplan 8.5% -> 0.0% (46 turns -> 0) met text patching 10.4% -> 9.6% not met orientation 5.1% -> 21.2% not met, worse The confound is stated before any defence of the numbers: this is the pass that built the tools, and the two categories that missed are exactly the two whose tools were under construction. The clean test is the next pass, and it is carried forward rather than waived. Test 2 — did the work relocate? Not into prose. Output tokens per response fell 896 -> 681. Output's rising share of cost is a shrinking denominator, not more writing. Cost per response halved and the evidence refuses to claim it: that is compaction (mean context 232,982 -> 117,822), and attributing it to tooling would repeat CB-WP-0002's original error in a new direction. Test 3 — did quality hold? Yes, recorded as explicit judgment. make all green with two gates that did not exist before, and four findings surfaced this pass, three caught by controls written this pass — one of them a 5.2x attribution error that would have reached the hub as a measured number. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 10:27:09 +02:00
if rep.get("since"):
print(f" since {rep['since']} (window is exclusive of this instant)")
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
print(f" transcripts {rep['transcripts']} responses {rep['responses']}")
print(f" main ${rep['main_total']:>10,.2f}")
print(f" subagent tree ${rep['subagent_total']:>10,.2f}")
print(f" TOTAL ${rep['total']:>10,.2f}")
if composition:
print("\n composition")
tot = rep["total"] or 1
for k in COMPONENTS:
c = rep["cost_by_component"].get(k, 0.0)
print(
f" {k:<12}{rep['tokens'].get(k,0):>14,} tok "
f"${c:>9,.2f} {100*c/tot:>5.1f}%"
)
if by_task:
print("\n by task")
rows = sorted(rep["by_task"].items(), key=lambda kv: -kv[1])
tot = rep["total"] or 1
for task, c in rows:
print(f" {task:<20}${c:>9,.2f} {100*c/tot:>5.1f}%")
# CA-10: the limit is reported with the number, every time.
un = rep["by_task"].get(UNATTRIBUTED, 0.0)
print(
f"\n NOTE: {100*un/tot:.0f}% of cost is UNATTRIBUTED — commits whose "
f"subject carries no T## tag.\n"
f" A per-task table is a view over {100*(1-un/tot):.0f}% of spend."
)
CB-RES-0003 + CB-WP-0004: 38% of pass cost is mechanical turns Review of where token-priced turns did work a deterministic tool could do. Method: classify every turn in both transcripts by the tool calls it made. The classifier is committed in tools/cb-cost.py and emitted by `make cost-mix`, so the baseline is reproducible and the same command can later falsify the predictions. mech environment setup 84 turns $15.33 mech ad-hoc text patching 75 turns $13.86 git 37 turns $13.85 mech hub task status 25 turns $ 7.46 mech orientation / inspect 49 turns $ 6.87 hub other 32 turns $ 6.22 mech ad-hoc transcript 39 turns $ 4.56 mech workplan status edit 21 turns $ 4.06 MECHANICAL (dedup) 290 turns $51.26 = 38% of pass Largest category is `cd` and `export PATH` -- pure friction, and dep-weight.py already patched it at the leaf, which is evidence it was noticed and fixed in the wrong place. Second is heredocs string-patching markdown, which is also the mechanism behind duplicated-fact drift, the error class InnerLoop v1.2 names and cannot gate. Explicitly NOT automated: git (37 turns, $13.85) is mostly commit message authorship -- the highest-output turns in the corpus and the project's reasoning record. Automating it would save money and destroy what makes corrections cheap. CB-WP-0004 implements five candidates and predicts $33-41 recovery (25-30%), below the 38% measured share on purpose: some inspection and patching is genuinely exploratory. The control loop is the deliverable, not a formality. T05 tests three things and must report all: did mechanical turns disappear, did they RELOCATE into prose, and did quality hold. If mechanical turns fall and prose rises by as much, the saving is zero and that is the result to publish. Also a self-indictment worth recording: every hub update_task_status in this project carried hand-typed token estimates, in a repo whose central finding is that estimated token counts are worthless. T02 fixes it by reading measured values from cb-cost. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 09:49:57 +02:00
mix = rep["tool_mix"]
if mix["turns"]:
print("\n tool mix — a turn's cost is charged to every category it")
print(" touched, so columns overlap and must not be summed")
for k in sorted(mix["turns"], key=lambda x: -mix["cost"][x]):
tag = "mech" if k in MECHANICAL else " "
print(f" {tag} {k:<28}{mix['turns'][k]:>5} turns "
f"${mix['cost'][k]:>8,.2f}")
print(f" MECHANICAL (deduplicated) "
f"{mix['mechanical_turns']:>5} turns ${mix['mechanical_cost']:>8,.2f}"
f" = {100*mix['mechanical_cost']/(rep['total'] or 1):.0f}% of pass")
CB-WP-0007 T01+T03: window the metric, budget it, cap meta at 25% Scope cut first, on the maintainer's decision after a spend review: the project is 38% product / 62% loop-meta, cost per response is 2.9x worse than its best window, and INTENT stage 0 still lacks a CLI player and bots. CB-WP-0005 and CB-WP-0006 cost ~$74 — 31% of all spend — for zero measured efficiency gain. T02 and T04 are cancelled unstarted. T01: SH-1/SH-2/SH-3 now report over the window since the last commit, and the cumulative figure is retained but labelled "history, NOT the metric". The prediction held decisively — window 655,744 mean context against cumulative 255,307, a 2.6x gap against a 20% refutation threshold. A cumulative mean over 1,094 responses cannot detect a worsening trend because the history outvotes the present. T03: `make shape-budget`, modelled on CB-01/CB-02. Soft thresholds are the existing SessionShape targets; hard is 1.5x, set before the next measurement per §Step 4. Deliberately not in `make all` — failing the build on context would block committing, and committing is what closes the attribution window and is the natural point to compact, so a gate that blocks the remedy is a trap. It fires HARD on its first run: 656,574 against a 300,000 ceiling. InnerLoop v1.5 establishes the soft 25% meta budget. Workplans declare kind: product|meta|mixed and `make status` reports the share; mixed splits 50/50 and says so. Soft on purpose — a task already started may be finished, because stopping mid-task to satisfy a ratio wastes the work. What it forbids is opening new meta work above the line. A pass that exceeds it must say so in its evidence and name the product work displaced. First reading: 68% OVER, of $74.22 attributed. Product reads $0.00 because the only product workplan, CB-WP-0001, predates qualified task ids and its bare T## labels collide across passes — stated in the output rather than papered over. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-01 14:12:07 +02:00
def _shape_lines(sh, indent=" "):
print(f"{indent}SH-1 mean context {sh['SH-1_mean_context']:>12,.0f} tok "
f"[{'ok ' if sh['SH-1_mean_context']<=200_000 else 'FAIL'} target 200,000]")
print(f"{indent}SH-2 p90 context {sh['SH-2_p90_context']:>12,.0f} tok "
f"[{'ok ' if sh['SH-2_p90_context']<=300_000 else 'FAIL'} target 300,000]")
CB-WP-0013-T01: SH-3 refuses a window that cannot carry a rate The metric six evidence files reported as 0.0% was never measured. --shape-budget windows since the last commit, and it is read while writing the evidence file — right after a commit, when the window holds one or two responses. SH-1/SH-2 are location statistics and survive n=2. SH-3 is a rate: at n=2 its only possible values are 0%, 50%, 100%. cb-cost.py gains sh3_line(), which below a minimum sample prints "insufficient sample" and no verdict. The floor is derived: if the true rate were exactly the 20% target, P(zero batched in n) = 0.8^n, and at n=14 that is 4.4% — so "0 batched in 14" rules out a target-meeting rate at ~95%. Below that the tool has nothing to say and now says so. The window was kept rather than split. SH-3 could have been given a per-pass window, but the budget's purpose is the open remainder since the last commit, and giving one of three metrics a different window makes "the window" ambiguous in a tool three specs cite. Four controls, three mutations, each red for its stated reason — including the one the evidence files actually hit, where a refusal is printed as a measured zero. SessionShape.md §4 carries the correction with the real per-pass figures (1.1%-6.3%), beside the eighth trusted-arithmetic instance. This is the ninth, and the second in this same metric. It also shows what the frozen 0.0% hid: against the pinned 7.8%-8.6%, batching has got worse, and six passes reported a breach that was moving underneath them. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-02 07:23:04 +02:00
# Same guard as the budget path: a rate a window cannot support
# must not be printed as though it were measured.
if sh["responses_with_tools"] < SH3_MIN_SAMPLE:
print(f"{indent}SH-3 batching rate insufficient sample "
f"[{sh['responses_with_tools']} with tool calls, "
f"need {SH3_MIN_SAMPLE}]")
else:
print(f"{indent}SH-3 batching rate {100*sh['SH-3_batching_rate']:>11.1f}% "
CB-WP-0013-T02/T03: retire SH-3 as a gate; correct AM-4a and its target ADR-0008, tier M (survey and ADR merged). D1 — SH-3 retired as a gate, kept as a diagnostic. Investigating it found a third defect, deeper than the two this pass was declared on. Re-deriving batching from the raw transcripts, independently of cb-cost: CB-WP-0011 pass 54 with tools 0 batched 0.0% gap -> next decl 16 with tools 6 batched 37.5% CB-WP-0012 pass 86 with tools 0 batched 0.0% gap -> next decl 10 with tools 1 batched 10.0% CB-WP-0013 so far 10 with tools 0 batched 0.0% Zero batched turns in 150 in-pass responses; 37.5% in one gap, above the 20% floor. Batching needs two calls whose inputs are known at once — orientation work. Implementation consumes each step's result before the next. SH-3's window is since the last commit, which during a pass is always implementation. The metric could not read above ~0% in the window it was gated on. A floor the window structurally excludes is not a target. This pass's own declaration was also wrong: it claimed batching "has got worse" (7.8-8.6% vs 1.1-6.3%). Differently-placed windows, not different behaviour. Withdrawn — the same class of error, in the pass written to correct it. Not retargeting to match the measurement: the floor was not moved to 6%, the gate was removed on an argument about what the quantity is worth. The number is still reported; only the verdict is gone. D2/D3 — AM-4a counts --edges normal,no-proc-macro: 157,202, not 246,250. The target moves down with it, 250,000 -> 161,000, so the correction hands back essentially nothing (headroom 3,750 -> 3,798). Three controls: the exclusion drops exactly the five expected crates, only removes and never adds, and is not a no-op. The DFD gate then caught the follow-on it exists for — three historical documents carrying live fact tags for a number that had changed. Not rewritten; untagged, with a supersession banner. AM-4b is deliberately not corrected: its proc-macro share is unmeasured. gate-review now reads 0 due, 0 silent, 0 drifted — GATE-REVIEW earns its first caught entry by forcing SH-3's re-justification, and the registry has no silent gates left. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-02 07:30:14 +02:00
f"[diagnostic, no floor — ADR-0008 D1]")
CB-WP-0007 T01+T03: window the metric, budget it, cap meta at 25% Scope cut first, on the maintainer's decision after a spend review: the project is 38% product / 62% loop-meta, cost per response is 2.9x worse than its best window, and INTENT stage 0 still lacks a CLI player and bots. CB-WP-0005 and CB-WP-0006 cost ~$74 — 31% of all spend — for zero measured efficiency gain. T02 and T04 are cancelled unstarted. T01: SH-1/SH-2/SH-3 now report over the window since the last commit, and the cumulative figure is retained but labelled "history, NOT the metric". The prediction held decisively — window 655,744 mean context against cumulative 255,307, a 2.6x gap against a 20% refutation threshold. A cumulative mean over 1,094 responses cannot detect a worsening trend because the history outvotes the present. T03: `make shape-budget`, modelled on CB-01/CB-02. Soft thresholds are the existing SessionShape targets; hard is 1.5x, set before the next measurement per §Step 4. Deliberately not in `make all` — failing the build on context would block committing, and committing is what closes the attribution window and is the natural point to compact, so a gate that blocks the remedy is a trap. It fires HARD on its first run: 656,574 against a 300,000 ceiling. InnerLoop v1.5 establishes the soft 25% meta budget. Workplans declare kind: product|meta|mixed and `make status` reports the share; mixed splits 50/50 and says so. Soft on purpose — a task already started may be finished, because stopping mid-task to satisfy a ratio wastes the work. What it forbids is opening new meta work above the line. A pass that exceeds it must say so in its evidence and name the product work displaced. First reading: 68% OVER, of $74.22 attributed. Product reads $0.00 because the only product workplan, CB-WP-0001, predates qualified task ids and its bare T## labels collide across passes — stated in the output rather than papered over. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-01 14:12:07 +02:00
print(f"{indent} {sh['tool_calls']} tool calls in "
f"{sh['responses_with_tools']} responses; "
f"{sh['calls_in_batched_turns']} in batched turns")
win = rep.get("session_shape_window")
print(f"\n session shape (specs/SessionShape.md) — window: "
f"{rep.get('window_label', '?')}")
if win:
print(f" THE METRIC — {rep['window_responses']} response(s)")
_shape_lines(win)
else:
print(" THE METRIC — no responses in the window "
"(nothing since the last commit)")
T04: specs/SessionShape.md — compaction is the lever, not session length The task's original premise was wrong and is recorded rather than deleted. It was written to prescribe one task per session; measurement says the variable is context, not turn count. Measured: - compaction cut context 27x (542,991 -> 19,974) and cost/turn 3.1x; the 202 turns after C1 cost less than half the 136 before it - a turn costs $0.010 at 20k context and $0.270 at 540k - break-even for a compaction is 2-11 turns, so: compact whenever context exceeds ~300k and work remains - a fresh session is NOT free -- cold start floors at ~51k and must then re-read the artifacts a compact summary already holds (~66k). Prefer compaction to continue work; prefer a fresh session when the task changes, because then prior context is pure overhead. cb-cost now emits SH-1..SH-3 so the targets come from the instrument rather than from analysis, per InnerLoop v1.1. All three are UNMET (mean context 232,982 vs 200,000; p90 492,042 vs 300,000; batching 7.8% vs 20%) and are reported unmet rather than retargeted -- retargeting in the commit that first measures is precisely what T07 exists to prevent. Eighth error instance found while writing this: CB-WP-0001's claim that "0 of 330 tool calls were batched" is wrong. 330 was the count of single-call responses, not the total; 31 responses batched, covering 76 calls. It was carried into this workplan unverified. Trusted-arithmetic class -- the one the T01 audit flagged as having no executable defence, confirming that finding within hours of making it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 09:19:32 +02:00
sh = rep["session_shape"]
CB-WP-0007 T01+T03: window the metric, budget it, cap meta at 25% Scope cut first, on the maintainer's decision after a spend review: the project is 38% product / 62% loop-meta, cost per response is 2.9x worse than its best window, and INTENT stage 0 still lacks a CLI player and bots. CB-WP-0005 and CB-WP-0006 cost ~$74 — 31% of all spend — for zero measured efficiency gain. T02 and T04 are cancelled unstarted. T01: SH-1/SH-2/SH-3 now report over the window since the last commit, and the cumulative figure is retained but labelled "history, NOT the metric". The prediction held decisively — window 655,744 mean context against cumulative 255,307, a 2.6x gap against a 20% refutation threshold. A cumulative mean over 1,094 responses cannot detect a worsening trend because the history outvotes the present. T03: `make shape-budget`, modelled on CB-01/CB-02. Soft thresholds are the existing SessionShape targets; hard is 1.5x, set before the next measurement per §Step 4. Deliberately not in `make all` — failing the build on context would block committing, and committing is what closes the attribution window and is the natural point to compact, so a gate that blocks the remedy is a trap. It fires HARD on its first run: 656,574 against a 300,000 ceiling. InnerLoop v1.5 establishes the soft 25% meta budget. Workplans declare kind: product|meta|mixed and `make status` reports the share; mixed splits 50/50 and says so. Soft on purpose — a task already started may be finished, because stopping mid-task to satisfy a ratio wastes the work. What it forbids is opening new meta work above the line. A pass that exceeds it must say so in its evidence and name the product work displaced. First reading: 68% OVER, of $74.22 attributed. Product reads $0.00 because the only product workplan, CB-WP-0001, predates qualified task ids and its bare T## labels collide across passes — stated in the output rather than papered over. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-01 14:12:07 +02:00
print(f"\n history, {rep['responses']} responses — context only, NOT the "
f"metric.")
print(" A cumulative mean cannot detect a worsening trend; the history")
print(" outvotes the present (CB-RES-0005 §1).")
_shape_lines(sh)
T04: specs/SessionShape.md — compaction is the lever, not session length The task's original premise was wrong and is recorded rather than deleted. It was written to prescribe one task per session; measurement says the variable is context, not turn count. Measured: - compaction cut context 27x (542,991 -> 19,974) and cost/turn 3.1x; the 202 turns after C1 cost less than half the 136 before it - a turn costs $0.010 at 20k context and $0.270 at 540k - break-even for a compaction is 2-11 turns, so: compact whenever context exceeds ~300k and work remains - a fresh session is NOT free -- cold start floors at ~51k and must then re-read the artifacts a compact summary already holds (~66k). Prefer compaction to continue work; prefer a fresh session when the task changes, because then prior context is pure overhead. cb-cost now emits SH-1..SH-3 so the targets come from the instrument rather than from analysis, per InnerLoop v1.1. All three are UNMET (mean context 232,982 vs 200,000; p90 492,042 vs 300,000; batching 7.8% vs 20%) and are reported unmet rather than retargeted -- retargeting in the commit that first measures is precisely what T07 exists to prevent. Eighth error instance found while writing this: CB-WP-0001's claim that "0 of 330 tool calls were batched" is wrong. 330 was the count of single-call responses, not the total; 31 responses batched, covering 76 calls. It was carried into this workplan unverified. Trusted-arithmetic class -- the one the T01 audit flagged as having no executable defence, confirming that finding within hours of making it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 09:19:32 +02:00
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
if rep["unpriced"]:
print(f"\n UNPRICED ({len(rep['unpriced'])} responses, model not in sheet):")
for u in rep["unpriced"]:
print(f" {u['model']} {u['tokens']}")
print(f"\n reconciled: ok (residual ${rep['residual']:.6f})")
# -------------------------------------------------------------- self-test
def self_test():
"""AC-5..AC-8. Each asserts a failure mode is actually detected."""
prices = load_prices()
checks = []
def check(name, ok, detail=""):
checks.append((name, ok, detail))
# AC-8: per-TTL cache pricing. 5m must not be priced at the 1h rate.
toks = {"input": 0, "output": 0, "cache_read": 0, "write_5m": 100_000, "write_1h": 0}
got = price_of(prices, "claude-fable-5", toks)
want = 100_000 * (10.0 / 1e6) * 1.25
wrong = 100_000 * (10.0 / 1e6) * 2.0
check("AC-8 5m cache priced at write_5m", abs(got - want) < 1e-9 and got != wrong,
f"${got:.4f} (1h would be ${wrong:.4f})")
# ADR-0006 D1: pass_costs buckets by window, and refuses to report a
# confident 0% when every response landed before the first boundary.
slug = "-home-worsch-clay-borg"
try:
real = pass_costs(slug, [("early", "2020-01-01T00:00:00Z")])
check("pass_costs places responses in a real window",
real["early"]["responses"] > 0 and real["early"]["cost"] > 0,
f"{real['early']['responses']} response(s)")
two = pass_costs(slug, [("a", "2020-01-01T00:00:00Z"),
("b", "2026-07-31T00:00:00Z")])
check("pass_costs splits at a boundary rather than pooling",
two["a"]["responses"] > 0 and two["b"]["responses"] > 0,
f"a={two['a']['responses']} b={two['b']['responses']}")
check("pass_costs windows sum to the unwindowed total",
abs((two["a"]["cost"] + two["b"]["cost"] + two["_before"]["cost"])
- real["early"]["cost"] - real["_before"]["cost"]) < 0.01)
except Abort as e:
check("pass_costs places responses in a real window", False, str(e))
try:
pass_costs(slug, [("future", "2099-01-01T00:00:00Z")])
check("pass_costs aborts when nothing lands in any window", False,
"no Abort raised — every pass would read $0.00 and 0%")
except Abort:
check("pass_costs aborts when nothing lands in any window", True)
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
# AC-5: dedup invariant is enforced.
import tempfile
with tempfile.NamedTemporaryFile("w", suffix=".jsonl", delete=False) as fh:
u1 = {"input_tokens": 1, "output_tokens": 2, "cache_read_input_tokens": 3,
"cache_creation": {"ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0,
"ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 0}}
u2 = dict(u1)
# Diverging cache_read is a real violation (input-side, charged once).
u2["cache_read_input_tokens"] = 999
for u in (u1, u2):
fh.write(json.dumps({"type": "assistant", "requestId": "r1",
"timestamp": "2026-01-01T00:00:00Z",
"message": {"model": "claude-opus-5", "usage": u}}) + "\n")
bad = fh.name
try:
read_responses(bad)
check("AC-5 dedup violation aborts", False, "no Abort raised")
except Abort:
check("AC-5 dedup violation aborts", True)
finally:
os.unlink(bad)
# AC-9: streamed partial output_tokens must resolve to the final total,
# not the first line. Regression pin on a real defect: first-wins scored
# a measured subagent response at 5 output tokens instead of 195.
with tempfile.NamedTemporaryFile("w", suffix=".jsonl", delete=False) as fh:
for out_tok in (5, 5, 195):
u = {"input_tokens": 2, "output_tokens": out_tok,
"cache_read_input_tokens": 0,
"cache_creation": {"ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 19008,
"ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 0}}
fh.write(json.dumps({"type": "assistant", "requestId": "r2",
"timestamp": "2026-01-01T00:00:00Z",
"message": {"model": "claude-fable-5",
"usage": u}}) + "\n")
partial = fh.name
try:
rows = read_responses(partial)
got = rows[0]["toks"]["output"] if rows else None
check("AC-9 streamed partial output resolves to final", got == 195,
f"got {got}, first-wins would give 5")
finally:
os.unlink(partial)
CB-WP-0004 T02: make task-done — close a task on measured numbers Replaces the three hand-done steps of a task close (46 turns, $11.52 per CB-RES-0003): the heredoc flipping status in the workplan file, the hand-written hub call, and the hand-typed token counts. The third is the reason this task exists. Every update_task_status this repo produced carried estimated tokens_in/tokens_out — in a project whose central finding is that estimated token counts are worthless. task-done reads the measured figure from the transcripts, or refuses; there is no path through it that emits an estimate. cb-cost gains by_task_detail: cost, response count, model histogram and token components per task. task-done imports cb-cost rather than parsing its printed table, so the hub figure is not a copy that can drift from its source. The positive control found a real defect before the tool ran once. Attribution keyed on a bare T\d\d from the commit subject, so CB-WP-0002 T01, CB-WP-0003 T01 and CB-WP-0004 T01 shared a bucket: the self-test reported $12.10 for "T01" where the qualified figure is $2.33. That 5.2x overstatement would have been pushed to the hub as a *measured* number — the same fiction in a new form. task_label() now keys qualified subjects on the full id and leaves unqualified ones bare rather than retro-assigning them to a workplan. The pinned $93.15 benchmark is unchanged, so historical attribution was not disturbed. Fourth instance of trusted arithmetic: a number believed because a program produced it rather than a hand. Refusals, all exercised by --self-test: unknown id, typo'd id, already-done task, missing state_hub_task_id, no measured spend, and a status flip that produced no change. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 10:17:51 +02:00
# CA-08 label collision (found by T02's positive control): three
# workplans each had a T01, and a bare-label bucket summed all three
# into one figure — $12.10 for a task that cost $2.33. Qualified
# subjects must produce distinct buckets.
check("CA-08 qualified task ids do not collide across workplans",
task_label("CB-WP-0004 T01: fix env") == "CB-WP-0004-T01"
and task_label("CB-WP-0002 T01: survey") == "CB-WP-0002-T01"
and task_label("CB-WP-0004-T01: hyphenated") == "CB-WP-0004-T01")
check("CA-08 unqualified subjects stay bare, not retro-assigned",
task_label("T01: cost-accounting survey") == "T01"
and task_label("chore: no task here") is None)
# CA-16: a dated promo rate must apply before its expiry and lapse after.
pr = prices
before = rates_at(pr, "claude-sonnet-5", "2026-07-31T00:00:00Z")
after = rates_at(pr, "claude-sonnet-5", "2026-09-01T00:00:00Z")
check("CA-16 promo rate applies before expiry and lapses after",
before == (2.0, 10.0) and after == (3.0, 15.0),
f"{before} -> {after}")
# CA-17: staleness must actually trip, or the rule is decorative again.
import datetime as _dt
fresh = check_price_sheet_age(pr, _dt.date(2026, 8, 1))
stale = check_price_sheet_age(pr, _dt.date(2026, 11, 10))
check("CA-17 staleness detected past max_age_days",
fresh is None and stale is not None, "fresh ok, 102d trips")
# CB-02: thresholds must be ordered, or the budget silently never fires.
ap_defaults = {"soft": 10.00, "hard": 22.00}
check("CB-02 budget thresholds ordered and positive",
0 < ap_defaults["soft"] < ap_defaults["hard"],
f"soft ${ap_defaults['soft']:.2f} < hard ${ap_defaults['hard']:.2f}")
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
# AC-6: zero responses must not report $0.00 as an answer.
with tempfile.NamedTemporaryFile("w", suffix=".jsonl", delete=False) as fh:
fh.write(json.dumps({"type": "user", "message": {}}) + "\n")
empty = fh.name
try:
got = read_responses(empty)
check("AC-6 empty transcript yields no responses", got == [], f"{len(got)} rows")
finally:
os.unlink(empty)
CB-WP-0013-T01: SH-3 refuses a window that cannot carry a rate The metric six evidence files reported as 0.0% was never measured. --shape-budget windows since the last commit, and it is read while writing the evidence file — right after a commit, when the window holds one or two responses. SH-1/SH-2 are location statistics and survive n=2. SH-3 is a rate: at n=2 its only possible values are 0%, 50%, 100%. cb-cost.py gains sh3_line(), which below a minimum sample prints "insufficient sample" and no verdict. The floor is derived: if the true rate were exactly the 20% target, P(zero batched in n) = 0.8^n, and at n=14 that is 4.4% — so "0 batched in 14" rules out a target-meeting rate at ~95%. Below that the tool has nothing to say and now says so. The window was kept rather than split. SH-3 could have been given a per-pass window, but the budget's purpose is the open remainder since the last commit, and giving one of three metrics a different window makes "the window" ambiguous in a tool three specs cite. Four controls, three mutations, each red for its stated reason — including the one the evidence files actually hit, where a refusal is printed as a measured zero. SessionShape.md §4 carries the correction with the real per-pass figures (1.1%-6.3%), beside the eighth trusted-arithmetic instance. This is the ninth, and the second in this same metric. It also shows what the frozen 0.0% hid: against the pinned 7.8%-8.6%, batching has got worse, and six passes reported a breach that was moving underneath them. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-02 07:23:04 +02:00
# SH-3 minimum sample (CB-WP-0013 T01). Three checks, because the
# guard has three ways to be useless: it could refuse everything, it
# could refuse nothing, or its refusal could be mistaken for a rate.
def win(n_with_tools, n_batched):
return {"responses_with_tools": n_with_tools,
"SH-3_batching_rate": (n_batched / n_with_tools) if n_with_tools else 0.0}
below = sh3_line(win(2, 0))
at = sh3_line(win(SH3_MIN_SAMPLE, 0))
good = sh3_line(win(20, 8))
check("SH-3 refuses a window too small to carry a rate",
"insufficient sample" in below and "%" not in below,
below.strip())
check("SH-3 still reports at exactly the minimum sample",
"insufficient sample" not in at and "0.0%" in at, at.strip())
CB-WP-0013-T02/T03: retire SH-3 as a gate; correct AM-4a and its target ADR-0008, tier M (survey and ADR merged). D1 — SH-3 retired as a gate, kept as a diagnostic. Investigating it found a third defect, deeper than the two this pass was declared on. Re-deriving batching from the raw transcripts, independently of cb-cost: CB-WP-0011 pass 54 with tools 0 batched 0.0% gap -> next decl 16 with tools 6 batched 37.5% CB-WP-0012 pass 86 with tools 0 batched 0.0% gap -> next decl 10 with tools 1 batched 10.0% CB-WP-0013 so far 10 with tools 0 batched 0.0% Zero batched turns in 150 in-pass responses; 37.5% in one gap, above the 20% floor. Batching needs two calls whose inputs are known at once — orientation work. Implementation consumes each step's result before the next. SH-3's window is since the last commit, which during a pass is always implementation. The metric could not read above ~0% in the window it was gated on. A floor the window structurally excludes is not a target. This pass's own declaration was also wrong: it claimed batching "has got worse" (7.8-8.6% vs 1.1-6.3%). Differently-placed windows, not different behaviour. Withdrawn — the same class of error, in the pass written to correct it. Not retargeting to match the measurement: the floor was not moved to 6%, the gate was removed on an argument about what the quantity is worth. The number is still reported; only the verdict is gone. D2/D3 — AM-4a counts --edges normal,no-proc-macro: 157,202, not 246,250. The target moves down with it, 250,000 -> 161,000, so the correction hands back essentially nothing (headroom 3,750 -> 3,798). Three controls: the exclusion drops exactly the five expected crates, only removes and never adds, and is not a no-op. The DFD gate then caught the follow-on it exists for — three historical documents carrying live fact tags for a number that had changed. Not rewritten; untagged, with a supersession banner. AM-4b is deliberately not corrected: its proc-macro share is unmeasured. gate-review now reads 0 due, 0 silent, 0 drifted — GATE-REVIEW earns its first caught entry by forcing SH-3's re-justification, and the registry has no silent gates left. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-02 07:30:14 +02:00
check("SH-3 reports a real rate, with no verdict attached",
"40.0%" in good and "no floor" in good and "FAIL" not in good,
good.strip())
# ADR-0008 D1: the gate is gone. A verdict reappearing here means a
# floor has been reintroduced without an ADR.
check("SH-3 carries no pass/fail verdict",
not any(v in sh3_line(win(40, 1)) for v in ("SOFT", "HARD", "FAIL", "[ok")),
sh3_line(win(40, 1)).strip())
CB-WP-0013-T01: SH-3 refuses a window that cannot carry a rate The metric six evidence files reported as 0.0% was never measured. --shape-budget windows since the last commit, and it is read while writing the evidence file — right after a commit, when the window holds one or two responses. SH-1/SH-2 are location statistics and survive n=2. SH-3 is a rate: at n=2 its only possible values are 0%, 50%, 100%. cb-cost.py gains sh3_line(), which below a minimum sample prints "insufficient sample" and no verdict. The floor is derived: if the true rate were exactly the 20% target, P(zero batched in n) = 0.8^n, and at n=14 that is 4.4% — so "0 batched in 14" rules out a target-meeting rate at ~95%. Below that the tool has nothing to say and now says so. The window was kept rather than split. SH-3 could have been given a per-pass window, but the budget's purpose is the open remainder since the last commit, and giving one of three metrics a different window makes "the window" ambiguous in a tool three specs cite. Four controls, three mutations, each red for its stated reason — including the one the evidence files actually hit, where a refusal is printed as a measured zero. SessionShape.md §4 carries the correction with the real per-pass figures (1.1%-6.3%), beside the eighth trusted-arithmetic instance. This is the ninth, and the second in this same metric. It also shows what the frozen 0.0% hid: against the pinned 7.8%-8.6%, batching has got worse, and six passes reported a breach that was moving underneath them. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-02 07:23:04 +02:00
# The one that matters: a refusal must not read as a measured zero.
check("a refusal is distinguishable from a genuine 0.0%",
below != sh3_line(win(SH3_MIN_SAMPLE, 0)))
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
# AC-7: the subagent tree is discovered by the path globs.
slug = "-home-worsch-clay-borg"
paths = transcript_paths(slug)
subs = [p for p in paths if "/subagents/" in p]
check("AC-7 subagent tree enumerated", len(subs) > 0,
f"{len(subs)} subagent transcript(s) of {len(paths)} total")
print("cb-cost self-test (positive control)")
ok = True
for name, passed, detail in checks:
print(f" [{'ok ' if passed else 'FAIL'}] {name}" + (f"{detail}" if detail else ""))
ok &= passed
return 0 if ok else 1
CB-WP-0007 T01+T03: window the metric, budget it, cap meta at 25% Scope cut first, on the maintainer's decision after a spend review: the project is 38% product / 62% loop-meta, cost per response is 2.9x worse than its best window, and INTENT stage 0 still lacks a CLI player and bots. CB-WP-0005 and CB-WP-0006 cost ~$74 — 31% of all spend — for zero measured efficiency gain. T02 and T04 are cancelled unstarted. T01: SH-1/SH-2/SH-3 now report over the window since the last commit, and the cumulative figure is retained but labelled "history, NOT the metric". The prediction held decisively — window 655,744 mean context against cumulative 255,307, a 2.6x gap against a 20% refutation threshold. A cumulative mean over 1,094 responses cannot detect a worsening trend because the history outvotes the present. T03: `make shape-budget`, modelled on CB-01/CB-02. Soft thresholds are the existing SessionShape targets; hard is 1.5x, set before the next measurement per §Step 4. Deliberately not in `make all` — failing the build on context would block committing, and committing is what closes the attribution window and is the natural point to compact, so a gate that blocks the remedy is a trap. It fires HARD on its first run: 656,574 against a 300,000 ceiling. InnerLoop v1.5 establishes the soft 25% meta budget. Workplans declare kind: product|meta|mixed and `make status` reports the share; mixed splits 50/50 and says so. Soft on purpose — a task already started may be finished, because stopping mid-task to satisfy a ratio wastes the work. What it forbids is opening new meta work above the line. A pass that exceeds it must say so in its evidence and name the product work displaced. First reading: 68% OVER, of $74.22 attributed. Product reads $0.00 because the only product workplan, CB-WP-0001, predates qualified task ids and its bare T## labels collide across passes — stated in the output rather than papered over. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-01 14:12:07 +02:00
# CB-WP-0007 T03 / CB-RES-0005 D2. Soft = the SessionShape target; hard is
# 1.5x, set here BEFORE the next measurement per InnerLoop §Step 4.
# Reported, never in `make all`: failing the build on context would block
# committing, and committing is what closes the attribution window and is
# the natural point to compact. A gate that blocks the remedy is a trap.
SHAPE_SOFT = {"SH-1": 200_000, "SH-2": 300_000}
SHAPE_HARD = {"SH-1": 300_000, "SH-2": 450_000}
CB-WP-0013-T01: SH-3 refuses a window that cannot carry a rate The metric six evidence files reported as 0.0% was never measured. --shape-budget windows since the last commit, and it is read while writing the evidence file — right after a commit, when the window holds one or two responses. SH-1/SH-2 are location statistics and survive n=2. SH-3 is a rate: at n=2 its only possible values are 0%, 50%, 100%. cb-cost.py gains sh3_line(), which below a minimum sample prints "insufficient sample" and no verdict. The floor is derived: if the true rate were exactly the 20% target, P(zero batched in n) = 0.8^n, and at n=14 that is 4.4% — so "0 batched in 14" rules out a target-meeting rate at ~95%. Below that the tool has nothing to say and now says so. The window was kept rather than split. SH-3 could have been given a per-pass window, but the budget's purpose is the open remainder since the last commit, and giving one of three metrics a different window makes "the window" ambiguous in a tool three specs cite. Four controls, three mutations, each red for its stated reason — including the one the evidence files actually hit, where a refusal is printed as a measured zero. SessionShape.md §4 carries the correction with the real per-pass figures (1.1%-6.3%), beside the eighth trusted-arithmetic instance. This is the ninth, and the second in this same metric. It also shows what the frozen 0.0% hid: against the pinned 7.8%-8.6%, batching has got worse, and six passes reported a breach that was moving underneath them. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-02 07:23:04 +02:00
# CB-WP-0013 T01. SH-1 and SH-2 are location statistics and survive a
# two-response window. SH-3 is a RATE, and at n=2 its only possible values
# are 0%, 50% and 100% — so reading it right after a commit, which is when
# the evidence file is written, reports 0.0% almost regardless of
# behaviour. Six evidence files quoted that 0.0% as a measurement; the real
# per-pass figure was 1.1-6.3%.
#
# The floor is derived, not round. If the true rate were exactly the 20%
# target, the chance of observing ZERO batched turns in n responses is
# 0.8^n. At n = 14 that is 4.4%, so "0 batched in 14" rules out a
# target-meeting rate at ~95%. Below 14 the tool has nothing to say and
# must say that instead of printing a number.
SH3_MIN_SAMPLE = 14
def sh3_line(win, min_sample=SH3_MIN_SAMPLE):
CB-WP-0013-T02/T03: retire SH-3 as a gate; correct AM-4a and its target ADR-0008, tier M (survey and ADR merged). D1 — SH-3 retired as a gate, kept as a diagnostic. Investigating it found a third defect, deeper than the two this pass was declared on. Re-deriving batching from the raw transcripts, independently of cb-cost: CB-WP-0011 pass 54 with tools 0 batched 0.0% gap -> next decl 16 with tools 6 batched 37.5% CB-WP-0012 pass 86 with tools 0 batched 0.0% gap -> next decl 10 with tools 1 batched 10.0% CB-WP-0013 so far 10 with tools 0 batched 0.0% Zero batched turns in 150 in-pass responses; 37.5% in one gap, above the 20% floor. Batching needs two calls whose inputs are known at once — orientation work. Implementation consumes each step's result before the next. SH-3's window is since the last commit, which during a pass is always implementation. The metric could not read above ~0% in the window it was gated on. A floor the window structurally excludes is not a target. This pass's own declaration was also wrong: it claimed batching "has got worse" (7.8-8.6% vs 1.1-6.3%). Differently-placed windows, not different behaviour. Withdrawn — the same class of error, in the pass written to correct it. Not retargeting to match the measurement: the floor was not moved to 6%, the gate was removed on an argument about what the quantity is worth. The number is still reported; only the verdict is gone. D2/D3 — AM-4a counts --edges normal,no-proc-macro: 157,202, not 246,250. The target moves down with it, 250,000 -> 161,000, so the correction hands back essentially nothing (headroom 3,750 -> 3,798). Three controls: the exclusion drops exactly the five expected crates, only removes and never adds, and is not a no-op. The DFD gate then caught the follow-on it exists for — three historical documents carrying live fact tags for a number that had changed. Not rewritten; untagged, with a supersession banner. AM-4b is deliberately not corrected: its proc-macro share is unmeasured. gate-review now reads 0 due, 0 silent, 0 drifted — GATE-REVIEW earns its first caught entry by forcing SH-3's re-justification, and the registry has no silent gates left. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-02 07:30:14 +02:00
"""SH-3 as a DIAGNOSTIC — no floor, no verdict (ADR-0008 D1).
CB-WP-0013-T01: SH-3 refuses a window that cannot carry a rate The metric six evidence files reported as 0.0% was never measured. --shape-budget windows since the last commit, and it is read while writing the evidence file — right after a commit, when the window holds one or two responses. SH-1/SH-2 are location statistics and survive n=2. SH-3 is a rate: at n=2 its only possible values are 0%, 50%, 100%. cb-cost.py gains sh3_line(), which below a minimum sample prints "insufficient sample" and no verdict. The floor is derived: if the true rate were exactly the 20% target, P(zero batched in n) = 0.8^n, and at n=14 that is 4.4% — so "0 batched in 14" rules out a target-meeting rate at ~95%. Below that the tool has nothing to say and now says so. The window was kept rather than split. SH-3 could have been given a per-pass window, but the budget's purpose is the open remainder since the last commit, and giving one of three metrics a different window makes "the window" ambiguous in a tool three specs cite. Four controls, three mutations, each red for its stated reason — including the one the evidence files actually hit, where a refusal is printed as a measured zero. SessionShape.md §4 carries the correction with the real per-pass figures (1.1%-6.3%), beside the eighth trusted-arithmetic instance. This is the ninth, and the second in this same metric. It also shows what the frozen 0.0% hid: against the pinned 7.8%-8.6%, batching has got worse, and six passes reported a breach that was moving underneath them. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-02 07:23:04 +02:00
CB-WP-0013-T02/T03: retire SH-3 as a gate; correct AM-4a and its target ADR-0008, tier M (survey and ADR merged). D1 — SH-3 retired as a gate, kept as a diagnostic. Investigating it found a third defect, deeper than the two this pass was declared on. Re-deriving batching from the raw transcripts, independently of cb-cost: CB-WP-0011 pass 54 with tools 0 batched 0.0% gap -> next decl 16 with tools 6 batched 37.5% CB-WP-0012 pass 86 with tools 0 batched 0.0% gap -> next decl 10 with tools 1 batched 10.0% CB-WP-0013 so far 10 with tools 0 batched 0.0% Zero batched turns in 150 in-pass responses; 37.5% in one gap, above the 20% floor. Batching needs two calls whose inputs are known at once — orientation work. Implementation consumes each step's result before the next. SH-3's window is since the last commit, which during a pass is always implementation. The metric could not read above ~0% in the window it was gated on. A floor the window structurally excludes is not a target. This pass's own declaration was also wrong: it claimed batching "has got worse" (7.8-8.6% vs 1.1-6.3%). Differently-placed windows, not different behaviour. Withdrawn — the same class of error, in the pass written to correct it. Not retargeting to match the measurement: the floor was not moved to 6%, the gate was removed on an argument about what the quantity is worth. The number is still reported; only the verdict is gone. D2/D3 — AM-4a counts --edges normal,no-proc-macro: 157,202, not 246,250. The target moves down with it, 250,000 -> 161,000, so the correction hands back essentially nothing (headroom 3,750 -> 3,798). Three controls: the exclusion drops exactly the five expected crates, only removes and never adds, and is not a no-op. The DFD gate then caught the follow-on it exists for — three historical documents carrying live fact tags for a number that had changed. Not rewritten; untagged, with a supersession banner. AM-4b is deliberately not corrected: its proc-macro share is unmeasured. gate-review now reads 0 due, 0 silent, 0 drifted — GATE-REVIEW earns its first caught entry by forcing SH-3's re-justification, and the registry has no silent gates left. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-02 07:30:14 +02:00
Retired as a gate because the window and the metric are systematically
anti-correlated: batching needs two tool calls whose inputs are known
at once, which is orientation work, and this window is *since the last
commit*, which during a pass is implementation work. Measured across
three passes: 0 batched turns in 150 in-pass responses, against 37.5%
in the gap between two of them. A floor the window structurally
excludes is not a target.
The minimum-sample refusal is kept. A diagnostic may be ignored; it
may not be wrong, and a rate over two responses is wrong.
Returns the line rather than printing it so both branches are testable
CB-WP-0013-T01: SH-3 refuses a window that cannot carry a rate The metric six evidence files reported as 0.0% was never measured. --shape-budget windows since the last commit, and it is read while writing the evidence file — right after a commit, when the window holds one or two responses. SH-1/SH-2 are location statistics and survive n=2. SH-3 is a rate: at n=2 its only possible values are 0%, 50%, 100%. cb-cost.py gains sh3_line(), which below a minimum sample prints "insufficient sample" and no verdict. The floor is derived: if the true rate were exactly the 20% target, P(zero batched in n) = 0.8^n, and at n=14 that is 4.4% — so "0 batched in 14" rules out a target-meeting rate at ~95%. Below that the tool has nothing to say and now says so. The window was kept rather than split. SH-3 could have been given a per-pass window, but the budget's purpose is the open remainder since the last commit, and giving one of three metrics a different window makes "the window" ambiguous in a tool three specs cite. Four controls, three mutations, each red for its stated reason — including the one the evidence files actually hit, where a refusal is printed as a measured zero. SessionShape.md §4 carries the correction with the real per-pass figures (1.1%-6.3%), beside the eighth trusted-arithmetic instance. This is the ninth, and the second in this same metric. It also shows what the frozen 0.0% hid: against the pinned 7.8%-8.6%, batching has got worse, and six passes reported a breach that was moving underneath them. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-02 07:23:04 +02:00
without capturing stdout a guard that can only be checked by reading
output is a guard that will be checked by nobody.
"""
n = win["responses_with_tools"]
if n < min_sample:
return (f" SH-3 batching insufficient sample "
f"[----] {n} response(s) with tool calls, need {min_sample}")
rate = win["SH-3_batching_rate"]
return (f" SH-3 batching {100*rate:>9.1f}% "
CB-WP-0013-T02/T03: retire SH-3 as a gate; correct AM-4a and its target ADR-0008, tier M (survey and ADR merged). D1 — SH-3 retired as a gate, kept as a diagnostic. Investigating it found a third defect, deeper than the two this pass was declared on. Re-deriving batching from the raw transcripts, independently of cb-cost: CB-WP-0011 pass 54 with tools 0 batched 0.0% gap -> next decl 16 with tools 6 batched 37.5% CB-WP-0012 pass 86 with tools 0 batched 0.0% gap -> next decl 10 with tools 1 batched 10.0% CB-WP-0013 so far 10 with tools 0 batched 0.0% Zero batched turns in 150 in-pass responses; 37.5% in one gap, above the 20% floor. Batching needs two calls whose inputs are known at once — orientation work. Implementation consumes each step's result before the next. SH-3's window is since the last commit, which during a pass is always implementation. The metric could not read above ~0% in the window it was gated on. A floor the window structurally excludes is not a target. This pass's own declaration was also wrong: it claimed batching "has got worse" (7.8-8.6% vs 1.1-6.3%). Differently-placed windows, not different behaviour. Withdrawn — the same class of error, in the pass written to correct it. Not retargeting to match the measurement: the floor was not moved to 6%, the gate was removed on an argument about what the quantity is worth. The number is still reported; only the verdict is gone. D2/D3 — AM-4a counts --edges normal,no-proc-macro: 157,202, not 246,250. The target moves down with it, 250,000 -> 161,000, so the correction hands back essentially nothing (headroom 3,750 -> 3,798). Three controls: the exclusion drops exactly the five expected crates, only removes and never adds, and is not a no-op. The DFD gate then caught the follow-on it exists for — three historical documents carrying live fact tags for a number that had changed. Not rewritten; untagged, with a supersession banner. AM-4b is deliberately not corrected: its proc-macro share is unmeasured. gate-review now reads 0 due, 0 silent, 0 drifted — GATE-REVIEW earns its first caught entry by forcing SH-3's re-justification, and the registry has no silent gates left. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-02 07:30:14 +02:00
f"[diag] no floor — retired as a gate, ADR-0008 D1")
CB-WP-0013-T01: SH-3 refuses a window that cannot carry a rate The metric six evidence files reported as 0.0% was never measured. --shape-budget windows since the last commit, and it is read while writing the evidence file — right after a commit, when the window holds one or two responses. SH-1/SH-2 are location statistics and survive n=2. SH-3 is a rate: at n=2 its only possible values are 0%, 50%, 100%. cb-cost.py gains sh3_line(), which below a minimum sample prints "insufficient sample" and no verdict. The floor is derived: if the true rate were exactly the 20% target, P(zero batched in n) = 0.8^n, and at n=14 that is 4.4% — so "0 batched in 14" rules out a target-meeting rate at ~95%. Below that the tool has nothing to say and now says so. The window was kept rather than split. SH-3 could have been given a per-pass window, but the budget's purpose is the open remainder since the last commit, and giving one of three metrics a different window makes "the window" ambiguous in a tool three specs cite. Four controls, three mutations, each red for its stated reason — including the one the evidence files actually hit, where a refusal is printed as a measured zero. SessionShape.md §4 carries the correction with the real per-pass figures (1.1%-6.3%), beside the eighth trusted-arithmetic instance. This is the ninth, and the second in this same metric. It also shows what the frozen 0.0% hid: against the pinned 7.8%-8.6%, batching has got worse, and six passes reported a breach that was moving underneath them. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-02 07:23:04 +02:00
CB-WP-0007 T01+T03: window the metric, budget it, cap meta at 25% Scope cut first, on the maintainer's decision after a spend review: the project is 38% product / 62% loop-meta, cost per response is 2.9x worse than its best window, and INTENT stage 0 still lacks a CLI player and bots. CB-WP-0005 and CB-WP-0006 cost ~$74 — 31% of all spend — for zero measured efficiency gain. T02 and T04 are cancelled unstarted. T01: SH-1/SH-2/SH-3 now report over the window since the last commit, and the cumulative figure is retained but labelled "history, NOT the metric". The prediction held decisively — window 655,744 mean context against cumulative 255,307, a 2.6x gap against a 20% refutation threshold. A cumulative mean over 1,094 responses cannot detect a worsening trend because the history outvotes the present. T03: `make shape-budget`, modelled on CB-01/CB-02. Soft thresholds are the existing SessionShape targets; hard is 1.5x, set before the next measurement per §Step 4. Deliberately not in `make all` — failing the build on context would block committing, and committing is what closes the attribution window and is the natural point to compact, so a gate that blocks the remedy is a trap. It fires HARD on its first run: 656,574 against a 300,000 ceiling. InnerLoop v1.5 establishes the soft 25% meta budget. Workplans declare kind: product|meta|mixed and `make status` reports the share; mixed splits 50/50 and says so. Soft on purpose — a task already started may be finished, because stopping mid-task to satisfy a ratio wastes the work. What it forbids is opening new meta work above the line. A pass that exceeds it must say so in its evidence and name the product work displaced. First reading: 68% OVER, of $74.22 attributed. Product reads $0.00 because the only product workplan, CB-WP-0001, predates qualified task ids and its bare T## labels collide across passes — stated in the output rather than papered over. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-01 14:12:07 +02:00
def shape_budget(slug):
"""SH-* for the window since the last commit, with soft/hard verdicts."""
try:
rep = collect(slug, None)
except Abort as e:
print(f"ABORT — {e}", file=sys.stderr)
return 1
win = rep.get("session_shape_window")
head = subprocess.run(
["git", "-C", REPO, "log", "-1", "--format=%h %s"],
capture_output=True, text=True, check=True).stdout.strip()
print("session-shape budget — the window since the last commit")
print(f" last commit {head}")
# Positive control: a budget that reports ok because it measured
# nothing is the harness-does-nothing shape, in a reporting tool.
if not win or rep["window_responses"] == 0:
print(" no responses since the last commit — nothing to report",
file=sys.stderr)
return 1
print(f" window {rep['window_responses']} response(s)")
breach = 0
for key, label, val in (
("SH-1", "mean context", win["SH-1_mean_context"]),
("SH-2", "p90 context ", win["SH-2_p90_context"]),
):
soft, hard = SHAPE_SOFT[key], SHAPE_HARD[key]
mark = "ok " if val <= soft else ("SOFT" if val <= hard else "HARD")
print(f" {key} {label} {val:>10,.0f} tok [{mark}] "
f"soft {soft:,} / hard {hard:,}")
breach = max(breach, 0 if val <= soft else (1 if val <= hard else 2))
CB-WP-0013-T01: SH-3 refuses a window that cannot carry a rate The metric six evidence files reported as 0.0% was never measured. --shape-budget windows since the last commit, and it is read while writing the evidence file — right after a commit, when the window holds one or two responses. SH-1/SH-2 are location statistics and survive n=2. SH-3 is a rate: at n=2 its only possible values are 0%, 50%, 100%. cb-cost.py gains sh3_line(), which below a minimum sample prints "insufficient sample" and no verdict. The floor is derived: if the true rate were exactly the 20% target, P(zero batched in n) = 0.8^n, and at n=14 that is 4.4% — so "0 batched in 14" rules out a target-meeting rate at ~95%. Below that the tool has nothing to say and now says so. The window was kept rather than split. SH-3 could have been given a per-pass window, but the budget's purpose is the open remainder since the last commit, and giving one of three metrics a different window makes "the window" ambiguous in a tool three specs cite. Four controls, three mutations, each red for its stated reason — including the one the evidence files actually hit, where a refusal is printed as a measured zero. SessionShape.md §4 carries the correction with the real per-pass figures (1.1%-6.3%), beside the eighth trusted-arithmetic instance. This is the ninth, and the second in this same metric. It also shows what the frozen 0.0% hid: against the pinned 7.8%-8.6%, batching has got worse, and six passes reported a breach that was moving underneath them. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-02 07:23:04 +02:00
print(sh3_line(win))
CB-WP-0007 T01+T03: window the metric, budget it, cap meta at 25% Scope cut first, on the maintainer's decision after a spend review: the project is 38% product / 62% loop-meta, cost per response is 2.9x worse than its best window, and INTENT stage 0 still lacks a CLI player and bots. CB-WP-0005 and CB-WP-0006 cost ~$74 — 31% of all spend — for zero measured efficiency gain. T02 and T04 are cancelled unstarted. T01: SH-1/SH-2/SH-3 now report over the window since the last commit, and the cumulative figure is retained but labelled "history, NOT the metric". The prediction held decisively — window 655,744 mean context against cumulative 255,307, a 2.6x gap against a 20% refutation threshold. A cumulative mean over 1,094 responses cannot detect a worsening trend because the history outvotes the present. T03: `make shape-budget`, modelled on CB-01/CB-02. Soft thresholds are the existing SessionShape targets; hard is 1.5x, set before the next measurement per §Step 4. Deliberately not in `make all` — failing the build on context would block committing, and committing is what closes the attribution window and is the natural point to compact, so a gate that blocks the remedy is a trap. It fires HARD on its first run: 656,574 against a 300,000 ceiling. InnerLoop v1.5 establishes the soft 25% meta budget. Workplans declare kind: product|meta|mixed and `make status` reports the share; mixed splits 50/50 and says so. Soft on purpose — a task already started may be finished, because stopping mid-task to satisfy a ratio wastes the work. What it forbids is opening new meta work above the line. A pass that exceeds it must say so in its evidence and name the product work displaced. First reading: 68% OVER, of $74.22 attributed. Product reads $0.00 because the only product workplan, CB-WP-0001, predates qualified task ids and its bare T## labels collide across passes — stated in the output rather than papered over. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-01 14:12:07 +02:00
if breach >= 2:
print("\n HARD — compact before continuing. Context this size costs "
"~10x per turn\n against a compacted session "
"(specs/SessionShape.md §2).", file=sys.stderr)
return 1
if breach == 1:
print("\n SOFT — over target. Compaction is the remedy and it is free.")
else:
print("\n within budget")
return 0
def budget(slug, soft, hard):
"""Live cost budget (specs/CostAccounting.md §7).
The per-task figure needs the commit that closes the task, so it can
only ever be retrospective. What IS observable mid-task is spend since
the LAST commit the open remainder because the transcript is an
append-live file. That is the number a budget can actually fire on.
"""
try:
rep = collect(slug, None)
except Abort as e:
print(f"ABORT — {e}", file=sys.stderr)
return 1
open_spend = rep["by_task"].get(OPEN_REMAINDER, 0.0)
head = subprocess.run(
["git", "-C", REPO, "log", "-1", "--format=%h %s"],
capture_output=True, text=True, check=True).stdout.strip()
print("cost budget — spend since the last commit")
print(f" last commit {head}")
print(f" open spend ${open_spend:,.2f}")
print(f" soft / hard ${soft:,.2f} / ${hard:,.2f}")
if open_spend > hard:
print(f"\n HARD BREACH — ${open_spend:,.2f} > ${hard:,.2f}. Commit what "
f"works, or stop and decompose. Uncommitted work is also "
f"unattributable.", file=sys.stderr)
return 1
if open_spend > soft:
print(f"\n soft breach — ${open_spend:,.2f} > ${soft:,.2f}. State progress "
f"as a percentage and decide: continue, or commit and decompose.")
return 0
print("\n within budget")
return 0
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
def main():
ap = argparse.ArgumentParser()
ap.add_argument("--slug", default="-home-worsch-clay-borg")
ap.add_argument("--pin", help="commit-ish or ISO Z instant (CA-07)")
CB-WP-0004 T05: control loop — 6 points recovered, not 25-30 cb-cost gains --since, so the baseline (--pin 578dcbe, 662 responses, $135.60) and this pass (--since 578dcbe, 83 responses, $7.82) are two disjoint windows over the same transcripts. Every verdict is on share of pass, since the windows differ 17x in size. Test 1 — did mechanical turns disappear? Partly. Mechanical share fell 38.2% -> 32.4%. Six points against a predicted 25-30; reported unmet, and no target was moved in this commit. environment setup 11.5% -> 0.6% (85 turns -> 1) met, decisively hub + workplan 8.5% -> 0.0% (46 turns -> 0) met text patching 10.4% -> 9.6% not met orientation 5.1% -> 21.2% not met, worse The confound is stated before any defence of the numbers: this is the pass that built the tools, and the two categories that missed are exactly the two whose tools were under construction. The clean test is the next pass, and it is carried forward rather than waived. Test 2 — did the work relocate? Not into prose. Output tokens per response fell 896 -> 681. Output's rising share of cost is a shrinking denominator, not more writing. Cost per response halved and the evidence refuses to claim it: that is compaction (mean context 232,982 -> 117,822), and attributing it to tooling would repeat CB-WP-0002's original error in a new direction. Test 3 — did quality hold? Yes, recorded as explicit judgment. make all green with two gates that did not exist before, and four findings surfaced this pass, three caught by controls written this pass — one of them a 5.2x attribution error that would have reached the hub as a measured number. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 10:27:09 +02:00
ap.add_argument("--since", help="window start, exclusive: commit-ish or ISO Z")
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
ap.add_argument("--by-task", action="store_true")
ap.add_argument("--composition", action="store_true")
T04: specs/SessionShape.md — compaction is the lever, not session length The task's original premise was wrong and is recorded rather than deleted. It was written to prescribe one task per session; measurement says the variable is context, not turn count. Measured: - compaction cut context 27x (542,991 -> 19,974) and cost/turn 3.1x; the 202 turns after C1 cost less than half the 136 before it - a turn costs $0.010 at 20k context and $0.270 at 540k - break-even for a compaction is 2-11 turns, so: compact whenever context exceeds ~300k and work remains - a fresh session is NOT free -- cold start floors at ~51k and must then re-read the artifacts a compact summary already holds (~66k). Prefer compaction to continue work; prefer a fresh session when the task changes, because then prior context is pure overhead. cb-cost now emits SH-1..SH-3 so the targets come from the instrument rather than from analysis, per InnerLoop v1.1. All three are UNMET (mean context 232,982 vs 200,000; p90 492,042 vs 300,000; batching 7.8% vs 20%) and are reported unmet rather than retargeted -- retargeting in the commit that first measures is precisely what T07 exists to prevent. Eighth error instance found while writing this: CB-WP-0001's claim that "0 of 330 tool calls were batched" is wrong. 330 was the count of single-call responses, not the total; 31 responses batched, covering 76 calls. It was carried into this workplan unverified. Trusted-arithmetic class -- the one the T01 audit flagged as having no executable defence, confirming that finding within hours of making it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 09:19:32 +02:00
ap.add_argument("--session-shape", action="store_true",
help="SH-1..SH-3 (always shown in the default report)")
CB-WP-0007 T01+T03: window the metric, budget it, cap meta at 25% Scope cut first, on the maintainer's decision after a spend review: the project is 38% product / 62% loop-meta, cost per response is 2.9x worse than its best window, and INTENT stage 0 still lacks a CLI player and bots. CB-WP-0005 and CB-WP-0006 cost ~$74 — 31% of all spend — for zero measured efficiency gain. T02 and T04 are cancelled unstarted. T01: SH-1/SH-2/SH-3 now report over the window since the last commit, and the cumulative figure is retained but labelled "history, NOT the metric". The prediction held decisively — window 655,744 mean context against cumulative 255,307, a 2.6x gap against a 20% refutation threshold. A cumulative mean over 1,094 responses cannot detect a worsening trend because the history outvotes the present. T03: `make shape-budget`, modelled on CB-01/CB-02. Soft thresholds are the existing SessionShape targets; hard is 1.5x, set before the next measurement per §Step 4. Deliberately not in `make all` — failing the build on context would block committing, and committing is what closes the attribution window and is the natural point to compact, so a gate that blocks the remedy is a trap. It fires HARD on its first run: 656,574 against a 300,000 ceiling. InnerLoop v1.5 establishes the soft 25% meta budget. Workplans declare kind: product|meta|mixed and `make status` reports the share; mixed splits 50/50 and says so. Soft on purpose — a task already started may be finished, because stopping mid-task to satisfy a ratio wastes the work. What it forbids is opening new meta work above the line. A pass that exceeds it must say so in its evidence and name the product work displaced. First reading: 68% OVER, of $74.22 attributed. Product reads $0.00 because the only product workplan, CB-WP-0001, predates qualified task ids and its bare T## labels collide across passes — stated in the output rather than papered over. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-01 14:12:07 +02:00
ap.add_argument("--shape-budget", action="store_true",
help="SH-1/SH-2/SH-3 for the window since the last commit")
ap.add_argument("--budget", action="store_true",
help="CB-01/CB-02: spend since the last commit, live")
ap.add_argument("--soft", type=float, default=10.00)
ap.add_argument("--hard", type=float, default=22.00)
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
ap.add_argument("--self-test", action="store_true")
ap.add_argument("--json", action="store_true")
args = ap.parse_args()
if args.self_test:
return self_test()
CB-WP-0007 T01+T03: window the metric, budget it, cap meta at 25% Scope cut first, on the maintainer's decision after a spend review: the project is 38% product / 62% loop-meta, cost per response is 2.9x worse than its best window, and INTENT stage 0 still lacks a CLI player and bots. CB-WP-0005 and CB-WP-0006 cost ~$74 — 31% of all spend — for zero measured efficiency gain. T02 and T04 are cancelled unstarted. T01: SH-1/SH-2/SH-3 now report over the window since the last commit, and the cumulative figure is retained but labelled "history, NOT the metric". The prediction held decisively — window 655,744 mean context against cumulative 255,307, a 2.6x gap against a 20% refutation threshold. A cumulative mean over 1,094 responses cannot detect a worsening trend because the history outvotes the present. T03: `make shape-budget`, modelled on CB-01/CB-02. Soft thresholds are the existing SessionShape targets; hard is 1.5x, set before the next measurement per §Step 4. Deliberately not in `make all` — failing the build on context would block committing, and committing is what closes the attribution window and is the natural point to compact, so a gate that blocks the remedy is a trap. It fires HARD on its first run: 656,574 against a 300,000 ceiling. InnerLoop v1.5 establishes the soft 25% meta budget. Workplans declare kind: product|meta|mixed and `make status` reports the share; mixed splits 50/50 and says so. Soft on purpose — a task already started may be finished, because stopping mid-task to satisfy a ratio wastes the work. What it forbids is opening new meta work above the line. A pass that exceeds it must say so in its evidence and name the product work displaced. First reading: 68% OVER, of $74.22 attributed. Product reads $0.00 because the only product workplan, CB-WP-0001, predates qualified task ids and its bare T## labels collide across passes — stated in the output rather than papered over. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-01 14:12:07 +02:00
if args.shape_budget:
return shape_budget(args.slug)
if args.budget:
return budget(args.slug, args.soft, args.hard)
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
try:
CB-WP-0004 T05: control loop — 6 points recovered, not 25-30 cb-cost gains --since, so the baseline (--pin 578dcbe, 662 responses, $135.60) and this pass (--since 578dcbe, 83 responses, $7.82) are two disjoint windows over the same transcripts. Every verdict is on share of pass, since the windows differ 17x in size. Test 1 — did mechanical turns disappear? Partly. Mechanical share fell 38.2% -> 32.4%. Six points against a predicted 25-30; reported unmet, and no target was moved in this commit. environment setup 11.5% -> 0.6% (85 turns -> 1) met, decisively hub + workplan 8.5% -> 0.0% (46 turns -> 0) met text patching 10.4% -> 9.6% not met orientation 5.1% -> 21.2% not met, worse The confound is stated before any defence of the numbers: this is the pass that built the tools, and the two categories that missed are exactly the two whose tools were under construction. The clean test is the next pass, and it is carried forward rather than waived. Test 2 — did the work relocate? Not into prose. Output tokens per response fell 896 -> 681. Output's rising share of cost is a shrinking denominator, not more writing. Cost per response halved and the evidence refuses to claim it: that is compaction (mean context 232,982 -> 117,822), and attributing it to tooling would repeat CB-WP-0002's original error in a new direction. Test 3 — did quality hold? Yes, recorded as explicit judgment. make all green with two gates that did not exist before, and four findings surfaced this pass, three caught by controls written this pass — one of them a 5.2x attribution error that would have reached the hub as a measured number. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 10:27:09 +02:00
rep = collect(args.slug, args.pin, args.since)
T04: tools/cb-cost.py — and its positive control fires on first contact Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles to the cent or aborts. The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against real data, which is the entire argument for writing it: CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId. True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/ tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads 5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5. So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max (CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test. The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time: $248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool. Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual $0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10. make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all` and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing transcripts present. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:50:04 +02:00
except Abort as e:
print(f"ABORT — {e}", file=sys.stderr)
return 1
if args.json:
print(json.dumps(rep, indent=2))
else:
render(rep, by_task=args.by_task, composition=args.composition)
return 0
if __name__ == "__main__":
sys.exit(main())