clay-borg/tools/cb-cost.py

766 lines
30 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
attribute(responses, commit_index(pin))
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]
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-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 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")
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"]
print("\n session shape (specs/SessionShape.md)")
print(f" 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" 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]")
print(f" SH-3 batching rate {100*sh['SH-3_batching_rate']:>11.1f}% "
f"[{'ok ' if sh['SH-3_batching_rate']>=0.20 else 'FAIL'} target 20.0%]")
print(f" {sh['tool_calls']} tool calls in {sh['responses_with_tools']} responses; "
f"{sh['calls_in_batched_turns']} in batched turns")
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})")
# 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)
# 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
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)")
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()
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())