aesthetic-instrument
great_cto's own committed aesthetic — the instrument panel. Dark five-step surface ladder, exactly one accent, two faces divided by MEANING (Geist speaks,…
Standardized cost-estimation framework for great_cto plans. Forces explicit LLM cost, infra cost, human-supervision time, and the (defensible) human-equivalent comparison. Output format is parsable by the board's /api/cost path — must follow exactly.
$ npx -y skills add avelikiy/great_cto --skill cost-model --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
/cost-modelContext preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Standardized cost-estimation framework for great_cto plans. Forces explicit LLM cost, infra cost, human-supervision time, and the (defensible) human-equivalent comparison. Output format is parsable by the board's /api/cost path — must follow exactly.
name: cost-model description: Standardized cost-estimation framework for great_cto plans. Forces explicit LLM cost, infra cost, human-supervision time, and the (defensible) human-equivalent comparison. Output format is parsable by the board's /api/cost path — must follow exactly. when_to_use: | Apply when: - pm is writing PLAN-*.md and the Cost section is required - architect is forecasting LLM burn for a new feature (gate:cost for AI archetypes) - any report claims a savings ratio — must show methodology effort: low allowed-tools: Read, Write paths: - "docs/plans/**" - "docs/architecture/**"
great_cto reports cost numbers on the board. Those numbers MUST be auditable, because a wrong "7,638×" claim killed credibility (see docs/blog/cost-dashboard-rebuild.md). This skill defines the format.
Every PLAN-*.md and ARCH-*.md cost section follows this exact template:
## Cost estimate **LLM**: $<low>–<high> (<N> calls × $<per-call avg>) **Human equiv**: $<low>–<high> (<hours> × $<rate>/h) **Infra delta**: $<low>–<high>/month **Time to ship**: <hours> agent-time, <hours> wall-clock > Methodology: <one-sentence rationale for each range>
The board's `getCostHistory()` parser anchors on **line-start** "LLM" and "Human" labels. Mid-line references are ignored to prevent the $240-trap regression. Stick to the template.
For each agent in the pipeline, estimate:
Quick reference for Sonnet 4 ($3/M in, $15/M out):
| Agent | Typical prompt | Typical output | Per-call cost | |---|---|---|---| | architect | 14k | 1.5k | ~$0.06 | | pm | 6k | 0.6k | ~$0.03 | | senior-dev | 8k | 0.8k | ~$0.04 | | qa-engineer | 11k | 0.5k | ~$0.04 | | reviewer (avg) | 8-12k | 0.6k | ~$0.04 | | security-officer | 12k | 1k | ~$0.05 | | devops | 9k | 0.8k | ~$0.04 |
For Haiku ($0.80/M / $4/M), divide by ~4. For Opus 4 ($15/M / $75/M), multiply by ~5.
Sum across the pipeline stages that actually fire (use `gatesFor()` and `reviewersFor()` from archetypes.ts to know the count).
The human cost to do the SAME work without agents. This is the "if I hired a senior engineer, how long would this task take, at what rate?"
Estimate hours conservatively. A "small feature" the LLM does in 15 minutes might take a human 2-4 hours (it's never just the typing).
Only count what's NEW. If the feature adds a Redis instance, count Redis. If it adds 10MB/month of S3 storage, that's noise — don't list.
Two numbers — both useful:
to days)
Before committing the section to the plan, verify:
ratio = human_equiv / llm_cost
If `ratio > 1000`, something is wrong. Common bugs:
| Bug | How to detect | Fix | |---|---|---| | Wrong unit ($ vs ¢) | LLM cost ends in /M tokens not $ | Convert: tokens / 1M × price | | Counting savings not spend | "Human time saved" not "Human cost" | Use cost of doing it, not value of skipping | | Mid-line label pollution | Plan has "$X LLM | $Y human" on one line | Use multi-line format from template | | Forecast vs actual mixed | LLM forecast counts toward total_llm | Separate forecast section if needed |
For AI archetypes (`mlops`, `ai-system`, `agent-product`), the pipeline opens `gate:cost` after architect's forecast. CTO must approve the projected monthly burn before senior-dev starts.
Use the GATE template:
## Gate:cost forecast | Production volume | Monthly LLM cost | |---|---| | 1K req/day | $X | | 10K req/day | $Y | | 100K req/day | $Z | Recommended monthly cap: $<cap> Triggers above cap: <what alerts fire, who gets paged>
❌ **Round-number theatre.** "$0.50 LLM | $7,500 human" — looks suspicious. Use realistic ranges: "$0.50–1.20 | $225–360".
❌ **Single point estimates.** Always provide a range. Single numbers hide uncertainty.
❌ **No methodology line.** Just numbers without rationale is unverifiable.
❌ **Hand-waved infra.** "Some hosting cost" is not a number. Either give $, or say "infra: no change."
## Cost estimate **LLM**: $0.75–1.85 (3 tasks × $0.25–0.62 per Sonnet call) **Human equiv**: $225–300 (1.5–2h × $150/h, mid-market senior) **Infra delta**: $0/month (uses existing Express + Postgres) **Time to ship**: ~15min agent-time, ~3h wall-clock (1 human gate) > Methodology: tasks sized by line-count estimate; per-call cost from > historical Sonnet 4 averages on this archetype's plans.
Ratio = 300/1.85 = **162×**. Plausible. Defensible.
You already have the agent. This is everything around it. great_cto runs Claude Code as a pipeline of 70 specialist agents — an independent model checks each stage before the next builds on it, spending caps refuse rather than warn, and three decisions stay yours: what gets built, how, and whether it ships.
Repo: avelikiy/great_cto
great_cto's own committed aesthetic — the instrument panel. Dark five-step surface ladder, exactly one accent, two faces divided by MEANING (Geist speaks,…
Catalogue of known SDLC anti-patterns that great_cto agents must actively reject when reviewing architecture, plans, code, or post-mortems. Used by architect…
Analyze images, websites, and Figma files to extract their design and generate a `design.md` with token system, component inventory, and reconstruction notes.…
Shared review framework that every domain reviewer (pci, oracle, gov, edtech, healthcare, mlops, etc.) MUST follow. Defines the output artifact (TM-{slug}.md),…
Structured idea generation + multi-LLM debate for the product-owner stage. Diverge (generate genuinely different bets), debate (a 4-persona panel on 4 models…
Run the great_cto controlled Codex lifecycle with controller-owned writes, verifier evidence, human gates and optional artifact release.