agentleFS
LazyIsEfficientLazyIsEfficient/agentic-os/.claude/skills/codebase-cost-estimator/SKILL.md

codebase-cost-estimator

Skill17 starsChanged 21 days agoMITView on GitHub

Estimate the full development cost of an existing codebase from lines of code, architectural complexity, and team-composition overhead. Use for 'how much would this cost to build', 'what did this codebase cost', development-cost or build-cost estimates, calendar-time estimates, and Claude/AI ROI on a delivered codebase. Estimates by measured LOC and complexity, not by ticket volume.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Always present a range with explicit assumptions.

    line 24
  2. Distinctive:

    Prefer a real counter over guessing:

    line 35
  3. Very specific:

    Assemble the estimate: Use the structure in assets/output-template.md: codebase metrics, dev hours, calendar time, market rates, …

    line 69
  4. Very specific:

    AI / Claude ROI (optional): If the codebase was built with AI assistance, follow references/claude-roi.md to estimate Claude's actual …

    line 73
  5. Distinctive:

    Always show ranges (low / median / high).

    line 81
  6. Distinctive:

    Use current-year market rates.

    line 83

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Codebase Cost Estimator

Estimate what it cost (or would cost) to build an existing codebase. The estimate is driven by measured lines of code and complexity — not by ticket count, story points, or feature lists. Always present a range with explicit assumptions; never a single number.

Inputs

  • A checked-out codebase (local path or repo) you can run git, cloc/tokei, and file counts against.
  • Optional: project README/status for version and scope context.
  • Optional: git history, for the AI-ROI step (commit timestamps).

Process

  1. Measure the codebase. Count LOC by language and separate production code, tests, and docs. Prefer a real counter over guessing:
    # whichever is installed; both break LOC down by language
    tokei .        # or: cloc --vcs=git .
    Record per-language LOC, test LOC, doc LOC, and total. Note complexity drivers: advanced frameworks, system-level/GPU/native code, and third-party integrations. These map directly to the productivity bands in references/rates.md.
  2. Convert LOC to raw developer-hours. For each code category, divide its LOC by the lines-per-hour band in references/rates.md (e.g. simple CRUD/UI 30–50 LOC/hr; GPU/shader 10–20 LOC/hr; comprehensive tests 25–40 LOC/hr). Sum to a raw coding-hours subtotal. Keep the per-category breakdown — it is the audit trail for the estimate.
  3. Apply overhead multipliers. Raw coding time is not total engineering time. Add the multipliers from references/rates.md for architecture & design, debugging, review & refactoring, documentation, integration & testing, and learning curve. Total overhead is typically 1.9x–2.25x raw coding hours. This yields total estimated engineering hours.
  4. Research current market rates. Web-search hourly rates for the relevant tech stack and seniority for the current year — do not use stale figures. Build a low / median / high rate table and state the rationale for the recommended rate (stack, specialization, region).
  5. Convert to calendar time. Raw hours ≠ wall-clock delivery. Apply the organizational-overhead efficiency factors in references/org-overhead.md (Calendar Weeks = Raw Dev Hours ÷ (40 × Efficiency Factor)) and show calendar time across company types (lean startup → enterprise), since a solo founder and a bureaucracy ship the same code on very different timelines.
  6. Layer in full-team cost. Engineering is not the whole bill. Apply the supporting-role ratios and team multipliers in references/team-cost.md (PM, UX/UI, eng management, QA, program management, tech writing, DevOps) to produce a role-by-role breakdown across company stages, plus a full-team total.
  7. Assemble the estimate. Use the structure in assets/output-template.md: codebase metrics, dev hours, calendar time, market rates, engineering cost (low/median/high), full-team cost, grand-total summary, confidence level, and assumptions.
  8. AI / Claude ROI (optional). If the codebase was built with AI assistance, follow references/claude-roi.md to estimate Claude's actual active hours (git-commit clustering preferred; file timestamps or LOC ÷ 350 as fallbacks) and compute value per Claude hour, speed multiplier vs. a human developer, and cost ROI.

Key principles

  • Estimate from measured LOC and complexity — never from ticket volume or story points.
  • Always show ranges (low / median / high). A single number is a lie about precision.
  • State confidence level and every load-bearing assumption.
  • Use current-year market rates; flag the search date.
  • Present professionally — the output should stand up in front of a client or stakeholder.

References

  • references/rates.md — lines-per-hour productivity bands and overhead multipliers
  • references/org-overhead.md — efficiency factors and the calendar-time formula
  • references/team-cost.md — supporting-role ratios and full-team multipliers
  • assets/output-template.md — the stakeholder-ready estimate template
  • references/claude-roi.md — AI/Claude ROI calculation method

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.