正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

Claude Code used 3x fewer tokens with one change: - Before: 10.4M tokens · 10 errors · $9.21 cost - After: 3.7M tokens · 0 errors · $2.81 cost I used InsForge Skills + CLI as the backend context engineering layer for Claude Code (open-source and local). With Supabase,...

65,041 次观看 • 18 天前 •via X (Twitter)

17 条评论

deezzex 的头像
deezzex18 天前

so basically you taught claude to ask once instead of 20 times. respect

Avi Chawla 的头像
Avi Chawla18 天前

that's correct

Ben Ellsworth 的头像
Ben Ellsworth18 天前

The one metadata call replacing a bunch of separate ones explains most of the token drop. Curious what was actually causing the 10 errors before, guessing it was drift from all that extra context piling up in the history

Bally_AgenticAI 的头像
Bally_AgenticAI17 天前

The 3x drop isn't from a smarter model - it's from replacing 5 chatty discovery calls with 1 structured state dump. Most token bloat is architecture, not reasoning. #ContextEngineering #AgenticAI @LangChain

kocer 的头像
kocer18 天前

3x fewer tokens and zero errors is a clean result. most people just keep dumping more context instead of structuring it once

Marwan Atef 的头像
Marwan Atef18 天前

tool schema is product design. raw API passthrough is how you burn context and teach the model to guess.

AXIALIS | Desktop App Tools 的头像
AXIALIS | Desktop App Tools18 天前

How much of the token reduction survives if you normalize for the error retry loop in the baseline run?

rocket0x01 | ETHGas ⛽ 的头像
rocket0x01 | ETHGas ⛽18 天前

most teams skip evals because it feels like homework then a single prompt edit silently breaks 30% of their flows

Gregor 的头像
Gregor18 天前

10 errors to 0 is the real headline here

Viliana 的头像
Viliana18 天前

This is usefull content🫡

Varik Verilion 的头像
Varik Verilion18 天前

10.4 over 3.7 is 2.8x, not quite 3x. the errors dropping to 0 is honestly the more interesting number here, that's the part that actually saves you debugging time, not just the token count.

AI Mastery Guide 的头像
AI Mastery Guide17 天前

Zero errors too, not just cheaper

The Bull 🐂 的头像
The Bull 🐂17 天前

Thats called over engineering lmao

The AI Therapist 的头像
The AI Therapist18 天前

3.7M tokens for zero errors? that’s not an efficiency hack. it’s the difference between a junior who asks questions and one who actually reads instructions. stop paying for curiosity. charge for answers

Corp 的头像
Corp17 天前

3x fewer tokens is a serious systems win. — corp

Giordano Bruno 的头像
Giordano Bruno17 天前

This would cost around $0.10 cents on DeepSeek. I am genuinely shocked at the cost here. Just built Golang Htmx Alpine Tailwind Front end with Gitea worktrees and Go CMS system synced to Obsidian template tool with AI prompt injection for articles,scheduling etc $3 Wild.

How They Make Money 的头像
How They Make Money17 天前

Love a number with dirt on it—messy progress beats vanity graphs. That "Claude Code used fewer" line stuck.

相关视频

I cut Fable 5 token usage 2.5x with just one change! - Before: 5.5 M tokens · 7 errors · $8.94 - After: 2.3 M tokens · 0 errors · $4.17 The final build was the same for both, but the path the agent took wildly differed. In both runs, the agent started with the same thing, i.e., it understood the backend before building anything, like: - Permission policies - Available storage buckets - Auth providers configured - How edge functions are deployed The first run used Firebase, which was built for a human dev using a dashboard. While the dev can read the above state by clicking through tabs, an agent has no dashboard. So it gathered the same info through API calls. And there's no single Firebase call that returned this info. The agent required to query multiple times, and each query over-returned. For instance, when the agent asked how sign-in is configured, Firebase also returned the entire auth surface and every method it supported. This was far more context than what it needed. And it repeated across every part of the backend it inspected. Some states (like which auth providers are active) weren't queryable at all. I provided it myself. Otherwise, the agent would have guessed. Errors further compounded the token usage. When a dev sees "permission denied," they can look at the console and figure out whether it's a rule, a path, or an unauthenticated request. Firebase returned the same string to the agent as well, and it had none of that surrounding context to debug. So it guessed again, picked the most likely cause, and rewrote code, utilizing more tokens. This Firebase setup cost me 5.5M tokens and 7 manual interventions during errors on a full-stack RAG app. But I brought that down to 2.3M tokens and 0 manual interventions by using InsForge as the backend context engineering layer (open-source and self-hostable via Docker). It provides the same primitives as Supabase/Firebase, but structures the entire information layer for agents, instead of dashboards. In one CLI call that consumed ~500 tokens, the agent saw the full backend topology before writing a single line of code. This included auth, database, storage, edge functions, model gateway, micro VMs, and deployment. Also, instead of loading the entire product surface into context on every task, four narrowly scoped skills activated only when relevant to keep cognitive load minimal. And to ensure efficient retries if needed, every CLI operation returned structured JSON with meaningful exit codes, so the agent never guessed what to do next. Here's the InsForge GitHub Repo: (don't forget to star it ⭐) The video below depicts the final build, comparing Firebase and InsForge. To dive deeper, I recently published a full walkthrough building the same RAG app on both backends and inspected them end-to-end. Read it below.

Avi Chawla

113,219 次观看 • 3 个月前

i just built a 4-agent software team. everything runs from Telegram and gets managed on a kanban board. a project manager who plans the work, a backend developer, a frontend developer, and a tester. the PM reads a goal, breaks it into linked tasks, and assigns each to the right agent. the thing that makes them a team instead of four strangers is a shared kanban board. every task is a row that survives crashes, and when an agent finishes, it writes a summary of what it built and what the next agent needs to know. the next agent reads that summary before it starts. so the frontend developer never has to guess the API shape, and the tester knows exactly what to verify. the hardest part was not the coordination. it was building an agent that could actually act like a backend engineer. a backend engineer stands up a database, wires auth, manages storage, deploys functions, and keeps all of it consistent while the rest of the team builds on top. an agent doing this from scratch drowns. it burns its context window remembering which tables exist and which endpoint it created three steps ago, and the work degrades fast. so the backend agent needs a backend built for agents, not for humans clicking through a dashboard. that is where InsForge came in. it is an open-source, agent-native backend, and i added it to my backend developer agent as a skill. a skill is a step-by-step guide that teaches the agent how to do a specific kind of work. with InsForge installed, the agent stopped improvising infrastructure and followed a reliable path: create the project, define the database, set up auth, deploy functions. to test the whole team, i had them build a working Google Docs clone, AI features included. the backend agent spun up the full service on its own. database tables, user auth, document handling, and edge functions running real TypeScript, all in one dashboard. the frontend agent read that summary and built the UI on top of it, and the tester closed the loop. the result was a backend an agent could reason about end to end, instead of one it kept getting lost inside. if you are building an AI backend engineer, InsForge is worth a look, it's 100% open-source. InsForge GitHub: (don't forget to star 🌟) the full article on Hermes Kanban: Mission Control for your Agents is quoted below.

Akshay 🚀

123,101 次观看 • 3 个月前

I just compared Claude Code vs Codex vs Cursor CLI The task was to build a Next.js app with Tailwind 4 and shadcn components to collect customer feedback and showcase it with a widget. I gave all three the same prompt and let them go for 30 minutes to see what they came up with. Claude Code with Opus 4.1 Even though I told it to set up the app in the existing project folder, it tried to create a directory for it. After I interrupted and told it not to do that, it built a demo form and landing page with no errors. I had to ask it to make the demo interactive so users could submit a testimonial and preview it. The landing page looked like AI and was pretty basic, but it worked and it was done in a fraction of the time of the others. Total tokens used: 33k Codex with GPT-5 At the end of the 30 minutes I just could not get Codex to produce a working app. It got stuck in a loop of not being able to set up Tailwind 4 and despite many, MANY, attempts, I ended up with a "failed to compile" error. Total tokens used: 102k Cursor Agent with GPT-5 This was the slowest agent by far and a couple of times I actually thought it got stuck in a loop and was close to Ctrl+C'ing to cancel it. The TUI is really nice though, especially how it shows diffs and it did eventually build a working app (after one or two slight errors that needed fixing) The demo was interactive and it had a very minimal design that looked bare but also a lot less like an "AI generated" app than the Opus 4.1 design. It also wasn't too chatty and just did what it needed to do! Code quality was on a par with Opus 4.1, but it did use 5.5x as many tokens to get there. Still cheaper than Opus on a direct comparison but not when you factor in a Claude Code Max subscription. Total tokens: 188k I'll be able to do a proper comparison and record some videos when I'm back from holiday but for now, Opus is still the more capable model out of the box and Claude Code is the more complete CLI product. It will be interesting to see how Cursor evolve their CLI though with commands and subagents because I think with GPT-5 they have a real shot at providing competition for Claude Code if they can optimise output to get similar quality with less tokens. Jump to 0:40 in the video to see the two apps. Which do you think is which? ;)

Ian Nuttall

195,173 次观看 • 1 年前

Claude Code is now scary good at full-stack! I asked it to build a real-time weather intelligence dashboard with an interactive 3D globe and a forecasting layer that predicts weather 3 days ahead. It came back with a spinning globe that has a day/night cycle using NASA satellite imagery, city lights on the dark side, weather icons that switch between sun and moon based on local time, and a time travel slider that scrubs through 10 days of data. Claude Code built the whole thing in a single session, including the backend, database, data pipeline, and frontend. For the database, I needed something fast for time-series workloads since the app ingests hourly weather readings across many cities and serves time-range queries on every slider interaction. I used Tiger Cloud by Tiger Data - Creators of TimescaleDB, which gives you managed TimescaleDB on the Postgres you already know. Claude Code connected to it through the Tiger CLI MCP server and set up the entire backend directly: - Provisioned the database service - Created hypertables for time-partitioned weather storage - Set up continuous aggregates for pre-computed rollups - Built the data ingestion pipeline and the full NextJS + ThreeJS frontend The time travel slider queries thousands of rows on every position change. On a regular Postgres table, this would require manual partitioning and index tuning to stay fast as data grows. TimescaleDB partitions the data by timestamp automatically, so each query only hits the relevant time chunk. Continuous aggregates serve the trend charts and forecast layer from pre-computed rollups instead of rescanning raw data on every request. The video below shows the final build in action, and I worked with the Tiger Data team to put this together. Tiger CLI is open-source (Apache 2.0) and works with Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, Gemini CLI, and VS Code. To try this yourself: → Sign up for Tiger Cloud (I have shared the link in the replies). It gives you $1,000 free credits (no card needed) → Install Tiger CLI: curl -fsSL https(:)//cli(.)tigerdata(.)com | sh → Run tiger mcp install claude-code → Give Claude Code a prompt and let it build Find the sign-up link in the replies.

Avi Chawla

14,838 次观看 • 4 个月前

THIS MIGHT BE THE #1 OPEN-SOURCE REPO FOR CLAUDE CODE RIGHT NOW. IT GIVES CLAUDE A MEMORY AND SLASHES YOUR TOKEN COST ON EVERY QUESTION The repo is safishamsi/graphify, a free open-source skill that turns any codebase into a knowledge graph Claude Code can read instantly. Instead of grepping through your files every session, Claude gets a map of how everything connects The problem it fixes: Every time you ask Claude Code about a big repo, it does the same thing, greps through dozens of files like a brute-force Ctrl+F, blows through your context window, and sometimes still misses the answer hiding in a file nobody searched. Claude Code has no memory of how your project is structured. Every session starts from zero What it does: It maps your entire codebase into a knowledge graph, capturing not just which files exist, but which functions depend on which, which modules are central, and which files cluster around the same concern. Claude queries the map instead of scanning files How it works, three passes: 1. Code structure, free and local. Tree-sitter parses your files and pulls out classes, functions, imports and call graphs. No LLM, no tokens, just your actual code mapped deterministically 2. Audio and video, if you have them. Transcribed locally and folded into the graph 3. Docs, papers, images. Here an LLM does semantic analysis, figuring out what each document means and where it fits. Only the meaning gets sent up, never your raw source It saves you money: Normally a question about a big repo makes Claude spawn explore agents that scan file after file, eating your context window and your token budget before you get an answer. With the graph already built, Claude queries the map instead of re-reading the codebase every time. Same answer, a fraction of the tokens. The graph only gets built once, then a hook rebuilds it after each commit for free, so you never pay that scanning cost again. The bigger the repo, the bigger the gap The best parts: it's a skill, so once installed Claude knows when to use it without you memorizing commands. It works on non-code folders too, point it at docs or notes and it can spin up an Obsidian vault How to add it to your Claude: 1. Install Claude Code if you haven't: npm install -g Paul Jankura-ai/claude-code 2. Add the skill: claude skill add safishamsi/graphify 3. Open your project folder and run /graphify . to build the graph 4. Optional, make it automatic: graphify hook install so the graph rebuilds after every commit That's it. Ask Claude about your repo and it reads the map instead of burning tokens on a file hunt Bookmark this

Yarchi

56,177 次观看 • 3 个月前

THIS GUY AUDITED 926 CLAUDE CODE SESSIONS AND FOUND MOST OF THE TOKEN WASTE WAS ON HIS SIDE everyone is blaming anthropic for the limits, so he decided to actually look at the data 858 sessions, 18,903 turns, and $1,619 estimated spend across 33 days here's what he found: 1\ one default setting was burning 14,000 tokens per turn Claude Code loads the full JSON schema for every tool into context at session start. whether you use them or not. 20,000 tokens of tool definitions sitting there on every single turn. the fix: one line in your settings.json "ENABLE_TOOL_SEARCH": "true" context dropped from 45K to 20K instantly. across 858 sessions that one setting was wasting an estimated 264 million tokens 2\ cache expiry is the single biggest waste 54% of his turns came after a 5+ minute idle gap. every one of those turns re-processed the entire conversation at full price which caused a 10x cost jump you go grab coffee. come back 5 minutes later. type your next message. everything rebuilds from scratch. the context didn't change. you didn't change. the cache just expired. 12.3 million tokens wasted on idle gaps alone 3\ 42 skills loaded. 19 of them used twice or less across 858 sessions. every one of those skill schemas sat in context on every turn eating tokens for nothing. 4\ 1,122 redundant file reads where the same file was read 3+ times one session read the same file 33 times. he ALSO built a full token auditor dashboard that shows you exactly where your waste is coming from 19 charts, opens in your browser, free AND open source

Om Patel

300,695 次观看 • 5 个月前

I tested Claude Code on a fresh account - 1,500 lines of HTML cost me 50% of my window. Full video and summary is here.. I just ran a recorded test on Claude Code with a fresh account (Pro, not Max - my main account was 20x Max) , and the result is honestly insane. The task was trivial: create 3 simple demo HTML pages, around 500 lines each. Roughly 1,500 lines of code total. Nothing massive. Nothing enterprise-grade. Nothing that should meaningfully stress a premium coding product. And yet Claude Code burned through 40% of my 5-hour window almost immediately. I ran the exact same test with Codex, and it consumed only 2%. Then it got even worse: after the session ended, I did absolutely nothing for 15 minutes, and Claude still ate another 10%. Total: 50% of the 5-hour window gone for a tiny HTML demo. My weekly usage had already started at 2% before I even really used it, and after this tiny test it jumped to 8%. Now let us be generous and assume this entire run used around 30k tokens total. If 30k tokens represents 10% of weekly usage, that implies around 300k tokens per week. That is roughly 1.2M-1.3M tokens per month, and even if you round up aggressively, you are still in the 1.5M token range. Using the Sonnet 4.6 pricing you list: $3 per 1M input tokens $15 per 1M output tokens How exactly is this supposed to make sense for a paid coding product? Because from the user side, this no longer looks like "premium usage protection." It looks like a quota system that is either wildly inefficient, badly broken, or being accounted in a way users are not being told about. And that is before I even get to my main account: my $200 Max plan now dies in a single day. Just a few months ago, similar or heavier usage would last me about a week. So no, I do not buy the "maybe you just used it more" excuse anymore. Something is clearly broken in Claude Code. Either token accounting is broken, context handling is broken, background consumption is broken, or all three. Alex Albert is this really the experience you want users to pay for? Just watch the video. I tried to be very transparent and clear for your team! I was fan of Claude but just disappointed! And if you want, send me the detailed token accounting for this session and let us inspect it together publicly. Because from where I am standing, this is no longer a small pricing annoyance. It looks like something seriously wrong is happening, and users deserve a real explanation.

Hayrettin Tüzel

26,854 次观看 • 5 个月前

THE GUY WHO WON ANTHROPIC'S HACKATHON JUST GAVE AWAY HIS ENTIRE CLAUDE CODE PLAYBOOK FOR FREE. 10 MONTHS OF WORK, ALL PUBLIC Affaan Mustafa won the Anthropic x Forum Ventures hackathon by building a full startup in 8 hours with Claude Code. Then he open-sourced the exact setup that did it. It's called Everything Claude Code, and it turns Claude from one assistant into an entire engineering team Repo: affaan-m/ecc This isn't a prompt pack. It's a system he refined over 10+ months of daily use shipping real products What's inside: A huge library of skills, dozens of specialized subagents, and ready-made commands, all working together. Each piece does one job. One subagent reviews security against OWASP standards. One optimizes memory so Claude stops forgetting earlier decisions around hour three. One learns from your past sessions and projects so the setup gets smarter the more you use it. Others handle planning, test-driven development, and language-specific code review Instead of one assistant writing code, you get an orchestrated team. A main session delegates to the right specialist when the task calls for it, the way a real dev team splits work The best part: it's not locked to one tool. It runs in Claude Code, Cursor, Codex and OpenCode, across Windows, Mac and Linux. Free, MIT licensed This is the difference between using Claude like a search box and running it like a team that ships. The guy spent 10 months figuring out what actually works so you don't have to Bookmark this

Yarchi

818,112 次观看 • 3 个月前