From 80501840e2e1d93a926db5fabc3eed549fe77fc1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Marcos Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2026 05:22:02 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] chore(cost-model): record the second measured review MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 31 steps, 190s, 2,213,077 in / 9,058 out, cache 0/0 — within 7% of the first run's input on the same tier, which is the first evidence the recalibrated tier defaults hold rather than fitting a single point. Also weakens the step-cap hypothesis from the previous commit: this run used 31 steps (more than the 28 that succeeded, and more than the run that failed) and parsed fine, so hitting `steps: 40` is not on its own what breaks the output format. Leaving the cap alone until the stderr logging catches a real failure. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01B11e8TZZxJyzHW7jj7KWUN --- pilot/cost_model.py | 16 ++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) diff --git a/pilot/cost_model.py b/pilot/cost_model.py index 50bd278..372d002 100644 --- a/pilot/cost_model.py +++ b/pilot/cost_model.py @@ -188,6 +188,22 @@ OBSERVED_RUNS: list[dict] = [ "cache_write": 0, "subagents": 0, }, + { + "label": "gitea_admin/pragent#7 (+ cost-model calibration + salvage fix)", + "date": "2026-08-18", + "tier": "full", + "diff_tokens": 21_000, # same PR, two commits later + "steps": 31, + "duration_s": 189.8, + "input": 2_213_077, + "output": 9_058, + "cache_read": 0, + "cache_write": 0, + "subagents": 0, + }, + # A third run of the same PR (sha 2613b3e, 31 steps' worth of work in 330s) + # ended without a parseable findings block and so reported no usage at all — + # the reason `salvage_summary` now keeps the usage section on that path. ]