caveman-evidence-review
Skill3 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Review Caveman Cloud evidence read-only: costs, Cave Score, Cave Plan, workflows, traces, latency, errors, compression, routing, and verified savings. Use when the user asks what Caveman found, where LLM spend goes, why cost or quality changed, which workflows need attention, or asks for a trace or analytics review. Prefer Caveman MCP tools; fall back to CLI JSON.
10 other projects use a version of this, 5 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- sudeepgupta90/my-ai-marketplaceedited, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- mjlueck-hash/cavemanword for word, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- MMACABRE/SKILLSedited, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- jjsizemore/jjskillsword for word, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- pengawasmknan/claude-skillsedited, first seen Oct 11, 2026
- Gopyr/gopyr-skills-hubtheir own version, first seen Oct 11, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use ponytail and grilling.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
GoogleSkillponytail
Forces the laziest solution that actually works, simplest, shortest, most minimal. Channels a senior dev who has seen everything: question whether the task needs to exist at all (YAGNI), reach for the standard library before custom code, native platform features before dependencies, one line before fifty. Supports intensity levels: lite, full (default), ultra. Use on ANY coding task: writing, adding, refactoring, fixing, reviewing, or designing code, and choosing libraries or dependencies. Also use whenever the user says "ponytail", "be lazy", "lazy mode", "simplest solution", "minimal solution", "yagni", "do less", or "shortest path", or complains about over-engineering, bloat, boilerplate, or unnecessary dependencies. Do NOT use for non-coding requests (general knowledge, prose, translation, summaries, recipes).
Also in 3 projects that use this
GoogleSkillgrilling
Grill the user relentlessly about a plan, decision, or idea. Use when the user wants to stress-test their thinking, or uses any 'grill' trigger phrases.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions10 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 4
- xingtu1996/dsh-xingtu-skills★ 2100% same
- jjsizemore/jjskills★ 1100% same
- mjlueck-hash/caveman★ 1100% same
- xingtu1996/xingtu-skills★ 0100% same
Edited · 5
- JuliusBrussee/caveman★ 118k94% same
- nomdedev/agent-manager-template★ 294% same
- MMACABRE/SKILLS★ 194% same
- pengawasmknan/claude-skills★ 094% same
- sudeepgupta90/my-ai-marketplace★ 094% same
Wrote their own version · 1
- Gopyr/gopyr-skills-hub★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository15 other files it gives its agents.
- caveman-learn/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- cavecrewSkill
- caveman-commitSkill
- caveman-compressSkill
- caveman-discoverSkill
- caveman-exploreSkill
- caveman-helpSkill
- caveman-learnSkill
- caveman-manageSkill
- caveman-optimizeSkill
- caveman-reviewSkill
- caveman-setupSkill
- cavemanSkill
- caveman-statsSkill
- fullstack-devSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. 5 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
5
Common
Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.
0
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Common: line 19
Keep these buckets separate:
- Common: line 24
Never add or relabel them.
- Common: line 25
Do not fetch prompt, completion, tool, or artifact payloads unless the user explicitly asks for payload review.
- Very specific: line 49
Stop if login or project selection is missing.
- Very specific: line 77
Use caveman_trace_search. Choose a bounded window and closed filters: workflow, agent, model, provider, error code, runtime mode, cache …
- Common: line 90
Do not infer causality from one expensive trace.
- Very specific: line 106
Call caveman_trace_get for a small number of high-signal trace ids.
- Common: line 142
If data is missing, name missing signal and stop at strongest supported statement.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
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
- Keep these buckets separate:
- measured provider-complete list-price cost;
inferreddaily headroom;verifiedledger savings;- evidence cost. Never add or relabel them.
- 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.
- Scope every read to the project selected by Caveman context. Never supply an organization id.
- Empty results are evidence of no current signal, not zero cost or zero risk.
- 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 listStop 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:
overviewcostsscoreworkflowsverified_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 --jsonState 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 25Step 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> --spansStep 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.
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
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.

