Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Apply a simple code transform via agent-booster's WASM engine — sub-millisecond, deterministic, $0 (no LLM call). Companion to cost-booster-route.
.claude/skills/ruvnet-cost-booster-edit/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-06 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -11% | 0% |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 123% | 0% |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 130% | 0% |
| case-10 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 15% | 0% |
| case-12 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 49% | 0% |
Direct wrapper around agent-booster.apply() (npm agent-booster v0.2.x, exposed via agentic-flow/agent-booster). Use when a transform is already classified as Tier 1 eligible — cost-booster-route recommends whether; this skill executes.
var → const, add-types, remove-console, add-error-handling, async-await, add-logging).Do NOT use when the transform requires reasoning about intent, naming, or cross-file context — those are Tier 2/3 jobs.
intent (one of the 6 booster intents) and file path.edit text from the intent (caller supplies).v3/ so agent-booster resolves:bash node --input-type=module -e ' import("agent-booster") .then(async ({ AgentBooster }) => { const booster = new AgentBooster(); const r = await booster.apply({ code: process.argv[1], edit: process.argv[2], language: process.argv[3] || "javascript", }); console.log(JSON.stringify({ success: r.success, output: r.output, latency: r.latency, confidence: r.confidence, strategy: r.strategy, tokens: r.tokens, })); }) .catch(e => console.log(JSON.stringify({ success: false, error: String(e.message) }))); ' -- "$CODE" "$EDIT" "$LANG"
0.5. Below that, fail closed: do NOT write the file; report and escalate to Tier 2/3.output field if success && confidence >= 0.5.memory_store --namespace cost-tracking --key "booster-edit-..." --value '{"intent":..., "latency":..., "confidence":..., "strategy":..., "applied":true}'. Feed the routing learner via hooks_model-outcome (use the cost-optimize skill's step 8).5 representative intents run through AgentBooster.apply():
| intent | latency (ms) | wall (ms) | confidence | strategy | success | |--------------------|-------------:|----------:|-----------:|-----------------|---------| | var-to-const | 5 | 5 | 0.65 | fuzzy_replace | true | | add-types | 1 | 1 | 0.64 | fuzzy_replace | true | | remove-console | 0 | 0 | 0.70 | fuzzy_replace | true | | add-error-handling | 0 | 0 | 0.85 | exact_replace | true | | async-await | 0 | 0 | 0.85 | exact_replace | true |
Avg measured latency ≈ 1.2 ms. All 5 above the default 0.5 confidence threshold. See docs/benchmarks/0002-baseline.md for the LLM-baseline comparison.
| Claim | Status here | |------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 100% win rate | Verified — 12/12 on bench/booster-corpus.json (see runs/latest.json). Booster AND Gemini 2.0 Flash both score 12/12 — this is a structural-correctness corpus, not a hard adversarial one. | | Sub-millisecond latency | Verified — avg 0.67 ms, p50 0 ms, p99 6 ms, max 6 ms. | | $0 per edit | Verified structurally — no API call, no token billing. | | Deterministic AST-based merge | Verified — same inputs reproduce the same output and strategy. | | Confidence ≥ 0.5 ⇒ correct | Verified on this corpus — 12/12 above 0.5 (min 0.551), all correct. | | 350× speedup vs. LLM | Verified — exceeded against every tier: 1000.9× vs Gemini 2.0 Flash, 1838.7× vs Claude Sonnet 4.6, 2634.1× vs Claude Opus 4.7. Run BENCH_LLM_BASELINE=1 BENCH_ANTHROPIC=1 node scripts/bench.mjs to refresh. | | Cost saved per edit | Measured: $0.000020 vs Gemini, $0.000722 vs Sonnet 4.6, $0.004720 vs Opus 4.7 (the booster side is $0 in all cases). | | Win parity with frontier LLMs | Verified — Booster, Gemini 2.0 Flash, Sonnet 4.6, Opus 4.7 all scored 12/12 on this corpus. Booster matches LLM accuracy structurally for deterministic transforms. |
To extend: add cases to bench/booster-corpus.json, run ( cd v3 && node ../plugins/ruflo-cost-tracker/scripts/bench.mjs ) (or with BENCH_LLM_BASELINE=1), commit runs/latest.json. Smoke step 23 fails the build if win rate drops below 0.80.
Override the LLM model: BENCH_LLM_MODEL='claude-sonnet-4' (when wired against api.anthropic.com) or BENCH_LLM_MODEL='models/gemini-2.5-flash' for a reasoning-model comparison. Pricing flags: BENCH_LLM_PRICE_IN, BENCH_LLM_PRICE_OUT.
fuzzy_replace is best-effort; for production transforms prefer cases that route to exact_replace (≥0.85 confidence in our sample).
ADR-0002 §"Decision 1" (route classifier) and §"Riskiest assumption" (Bash-shelled invocation) · cost-booster-route (classifier-side companion) · agent-booster npm README (3-mode install, MCP / npm / HTTP).
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→fail | 5,107 | 6,288 | +23% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 499 | 1,994 | +300% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 6,347 | 7,675 | +21% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,210 | 1,873 | +55% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 3,577 | 5,512 | +54% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 207 | 1,928 | +831% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | 31,053 | 9,000 | -71% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,303 | 3,391 | +160% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 11,883 | 5,717 | -52% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,012 | 2,657 | +32% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→pass | 14,571 | 4,817 | -67% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,087 | 2,743 | -11% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 6,012 | 4,924 | -18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,179 | 2,628 | +123% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 7,621 | 7,621 | 0% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,627 | 3,081 | +89% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 5,952 | 4,167 | -30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,046 | 2,401 | +130% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | 12,168 | 4,617 | -62% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,181 | 2,516 | +15% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | 15,952 | 2,147 | -87% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,797 | 1,868 | -33% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | 7,672 | 2,050 | -73% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,337 | 1,992 | +49% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→fail | 7,203 | 2,014 | -72% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,174 | 1,992 | +70% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | 10,283 | 4,668 | -55% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,786 | 2,413 | +35% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | 3,522 | 2,437 | -31% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 623 | 2,065 | +231% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 10,149 | 4,725 | -53% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,985 | 2,579 | +30% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | 7,413 | 3,195 | -57% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,361 | 2,166 | +59% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | 8,409 | 3,974 | -53% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,465 | 2,427 | +66% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | 9,271 | 5,192 | -44% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,706 | 2,548 | +49% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | 12,986 | 7,829 | -40% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,148 | 2,928 | +36% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 11,638 | 4,560 | -61% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,245 | 2,619 | +17% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | fail→pass | 7,362 | 5,017 | -32% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,510 | 2,586 | +71% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted, and 18 counted toward the lift figure. The other 4 produced results that are not comparable between the two arms, so they are excluded from the headline rather than averaged into it. The headline lift of +59 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 18 comparable cases.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.