AgentStack
Browse Sign in
Browse Why AgentStack Sell Docs
Sign in
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Llm Cost Latency Budget

skill-mohitagw15856-pm-claude-skills-llm-cost-latency-budget · by mohitagw15856

Model the cost and latency of an LLM feature before it ships and surprises the bill. Use when asked to estimate LLM API costs, set a latency/token budget, decide which model tier to use, or bring down the cost of an AI feature. Produces a cost & latency budget — token math per request, monthly cost projection, model tiering, caching/streaming levers, p95 latency targets, and a guardrail/alert pla…

No reviews yet
0 installs
3 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-mohitagw15856-pm-claude-skills-llm-cost-latency-budget

✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →

  • Prompt-injection patterns
  • Secret / credential exfiltration
  • Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
  • Untrusted network calls
  • Known-malicious package signatures

What it can access

  • Network access No
  • Filesystem access No
  • Shell / process execution No
  • Environment & secrets No
  • Dynamic code execution No

From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.

View the full security report →

Verified badge

Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.

AgentStack Verified badge Links to your public security report.
[![AgentStack Verified](https://agentstack.voostack.com/badges/verified.svg)](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-mohitagw15856-pm-claude-skills-llm-cost-latency-budget)

Reliability & compatibility

Security review passed
0 installs to date
no reviews yet
1mo ago

Declared compatibility

Claude CodeClaude Desktop

Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.

Preview Execution monitoring

We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.

How agent discovery & health will work →
Are you the author of Llm Cost Latency Budget? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

LLM Cost & Latency Budget Skill

LLM features have a unit cost and a tail latency that demos hide and production exposes. This skill does the token math up front — what one request costs, what a million cost, where the p95 latency comes from — and lays out the levers (model tiering, caching, prompt trimming) so cost and speed are designed, not discovered.

Required Inputs

Ask for these only if they aren't already provided:

  • The request shape — typical system prompt, user input, retrieved context, and output sizes (in rough tokens).
  • Volume — requests/day now and at target scale; peak concurrency.
  • Models in play — candidate model(s) and their per-token input/output prices.
  • Targets — acceptable cost per request (or per user/month) and the latency users will tolerate (p50 / p95).

Output Format

Cost & Latency Budget: [feature]

1. Per-request token math — a table estimating tokens in/out per call, and the resulting cost at each candidate model's price.

| Component | Tokens | $ in | $ out | |---|---|---|---| | System prompt | | | | | Retrieved context | | | | | User input | | | | | Output | | | | | Per request | | $x | |

2. Monthly projection — per-request cost × volume, at current and target scale; the headline number leadership will ask for.

3. Model tiering — route easy requests to a cheaper/faster model and only escalate hard ones (cascade); show the blended cost. Often the single biggest saving.

4. Latency — where the p95 comes from (model TTFT + output length + retrieval + network), the target, and how streaming changes perceived latency even when total time is unchanged.

5. Cost levers — ranked by impact: prompt/context trimming, caching (prompt cache + response cache for repeats), shorter outputs (max_tokens), batching, tiering, and "do you need the model at all for this path."

6. Guardrails — per-user / per-day rate limits, a max-tokens cap, a spend alert threshold, and a kill switch — so a bug or abuse can't produce a surprise invoice.

Quality Checks

  • [ ] Token estimates are itemised (system + context + input + output), not a single guessed number
  • [ ] The monthly cost is projected at target scale, not just today's volume
  • [ ] Model tiering / cascade is considered before accepting the flagship-model cost everywhere
  • [ ] p95 (not just average) latency is targeted, and streaming is considered for perceived speed
  • [ ] Caching is evaluated for repeated prompts/contexts
  • [ ] A spend alert + rate limit + kill switch are specified to cap the downside

Anti-Patterns

  • [ ] Do not budget on average latency — users feel the p95, and the tail is where AI features feel broken
  • [ ] Do not default every call to the most capable model — most requests don't need it; tiering often cuts cost by more than half
  • [ ] Do not forget output tokens cost more than input — verbose responses are often the hidden cost driver
  • [ ] Do not ship without a spend cap and alert — an unbounded LLM feature is an unbounded bill
  • [ ] Do not optimise cost before measuring it — itemise the real token usage first, then pull the biggest lever

Based On

LLM production cost/latency practice — token accounting, model cascades/tiering, prompt & response caching, and tail-latency budgeting.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet, be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.