SkillAgentSearch skills...

caveman-evidence-review

Read-only review of Caveman Cloud evidence: cost, Cave Score, workflows, traces, latency, errors, routing, savings

Install / Use

npx skills add JuliusBrussee/caveman --skill caveman-evidence-review

Installs into whichever agent you are using.

About this skill
📄

SKILL.md

Installable skill definition

Quality Score

87/100

Category

Automation

Supported Platforms

Universal

Our assessment of caveman-evidence-review

caveman-evidence-review scores 87/100 on our quality scale, 355th of 1,111 Automation skills we index (top 32%).

Its SKILL.md is 3.6 KB long, well organised into 8 sections with 6 code examples: a solid amount of guidance for an agent.

With 107,653 GitHub stars, it is one of the more widely adopted skills in the catalogue.

Substance
26/30
Structure
20/20
Description
12/15
Adoption
20/20
Freshness
15/15

Maintenance, license and trust

  • The repository was last updated yesterday, so caveman-evidence-review is actively maintained.
  • No license is declared. By default that means all rights are reserved: you can read it, but reusing or redistributing it is not clearly permitted. Ask the author before building on it commercially.
  • Its trust signals score 88/100, with 1 caution from licensing, adoption, age or documentation. These come from repository metadata, not a code audit — read the skill file before letting an agent act on it.

caveman-evidence-review compared with similar skills

All 4 of these similar skills score higher than caveman-evidence-review; compare them before choosing.

SkillScoreStarsUpdatedFormat
caveman-evidence-review (this skill)by JuliusBrussee87107.7k1d agoSKILL.md
Agent-Reachby Panniantong10085.4k9d agoCLAUDE.md
rufloby ruvnet10073.2ktodayCLAUDE.md
Scraplingby D4Vinci10083.5ktodayMCP Server
algorithmic-artby anthropics100177.9k2d agoSKILL.md

Frequently asked questions

How do I install caveman-evidence-review?
Run npx skills add JuliusBrussee/caveman --skill caveman-evidence-review. The install tabs above show the steps for each supported agent.
Which AI agents does caveman-evidence-review work with?
It is written for Universal, as a SKILL.md file. Other agents that read the same format can often use it too.
Is caveman-evidence-review safe to use?
It declares no license and scores 88/100 on trust signals. Skills are instructions an agent will follow, so read the file before installing it and do not approve commands you do not understand.
Is caveman-evidence-review still maintained?
The repository was last updated yesterday, so caveman-evidence-review is actively maintained.

name: caveman-evidence-review description: > Read-only review of Caveman Cloud evidence: cost, Cave Score, workflows, traces, latency, errors, routing, savings. Use when asked what Caveman found or where LLM spend goes.

Review Caveman evidence

Act as a read-only operator. Build conclusions from current Caveman data, not from repository guesses. Never start, approve, cancel, or roll back an experiment from this skill.

Hard rules

  1. Keep these buckets separate:
    • measured provider-complete list-price cost;
    • inferred daily headroom;
    • verified ledger savings;
    • evidence cost. Never add or relabel them.
  2. Do not fetch prompt, completion, tool, or artifact payloads unless the user explicitly asks for payload review. Metadata, spans, timing, models, token counts, status, and optimizer attribution are enough for the default review.
  3. Scope every read to the project selected by Caveman context. Never supply an organization id.
  4. Empty results are evidence of no current signal, not zero cost or zero risk.
  5. Cite trace ids and exact time windows used. Do not claim a cause from an aggregate alone.

Step 1 — Load context

Prefer MCP:

caveman_context {}

CLI fallback:

caveman cloud whoami
caveman cloud projects list

Stop if login or project selection is missing. Ask the user to run caveman login or select a project; never guess.

Step 2 — Establish baseline

Use caveman_report for:

  • overview
  • costs
  • score
  • workflows
  • verified_savings

Then use caveman_plan for ranked daily headroom. If question is narrow, skip unrelated reports. Read shortest set that can answer it.

CLI fallback:

caveman cloud costs
caveman cloud score
caveman cloud plan --json

State report window and basis before interpreting direction.

Step 3 — Test the leading explanation with traces

Use caveman_trace_search. Choose a bounded window and closed filters: workflow, agent, model, provider, error code, runtime mode, cache status, optimization id, status class, token/cost/latency bounds, compression, or monitor verdict.

Useful groupings:

  • workflow — find jobs driving cost or failures;
  • model — compare model mix;
  • session — isolate retry or loop behavior;
  • ungrouped — identify exact traces.

Compare a suspect cohort with a control cohort or earlier bounded window. Do not infer causality from one expensive trace.

CLI fallback:

caveman cloud traces search \
  --workflow <slug> \
  --from <RFC3339> \
  --to <RFC3339> \
  --sort total_cost_usd \
  --dir desc \
  --limit 25

Step 4 — Inspect representative traces

Call caveman_trace_get for a small number of high-signal trace ids. Inspect request and span metadata, latency, status, token counts, cache state, applied optimizers, and model route. Keep payload retrieval off.

CLI fallback:

caveman cloud traces show <trace-id> --spans

Step 5 — Report

Use this shape:

## Caveman evidence review

Scope: <project> · <from> to <to>
Measured cost: <value and basis>
Verified savings: <ledger value, kept separate>
Inferred headroom: <per-day band, kept separate>

Findings:
1. <finding> — <aggregate evidence> — traces <ids>
2. <finding> — <aggregate evidence> — traces <ids>

Unproven:
- <plausible explanation lacking a control, trace, or eval>

Next read-only check:
- <one bounded query>

Possible action:
- <proposal only; use caveman-manage for read-only lifecycle review and safety gate>

If data is missing, name missing signal and stop at strongest supported statement. Never turn a catalog subtotal into an invoice or an experiment result into verified savings.

Related Skills

View on GitHub
GitHub Stars107.7k
CategoryAutomation
Updated1d ago
Forks6.2k

Languages

Go

Trust signals

88/100

From repository metadata: license, adoption, age and documentation. Not a code audit — see the Safety scan above for what the skill file itself contains.

1 medium