AI Token Optimization
We provide comprehensive feedback and ongoing support to ensure peak inference efficiency.
Your model is fine. Your system prompt is 14,000 tokens of apologies.
01 token audits
the bill, audited down
02 overhead automation
admin, hr, support — by agents
# 01 — what we audit
Every token your product ingests or emits is a line item. We read the line items.
-
prompt architecture
System prompts accrete. Instructions repeat. Three people added "be concise" in three different places. We deduplicate, modularize, and delete the paragraph nobody remembers writing.
-
context hygiene
Sessions that never end. Histories that never compact. Ninety-turn transcripts riding along on turn ninety-one. Fresh context per task; carry state, not scrollback.
-
prompt caching
Most teams cache a fraction of what they could and pay full price for the same prefix ten thousand times a day. Stable prefixes, cache-aware ordering, hit rates that justify the feature's existence.
-
model routing
Frontier model as the default for every request is a choice. Usually the wrong one. Cheap-first cascades, escalation on failure, verified by evals — not vibes.
-
output controls
max_tokens is not decorative. Structured outputs, stop sequences, and answers that end when they are done answering.
-
retrieval efficiency
Top-k set to 20 out of caution. Chunks overlapping 60%. Your RAG pipeline is buying the same paragraph five times per query.
-
agent loops
Tool definitions the length of novellas. Retry storms. Agents that re-read the file they just wrote. We cap the sprawl.
-
spend observability
Per-feature cost attribution, so "the AI bill went up" becomes a ticket with an owner instead of a mystery with a Slack thread.
# 02 — what we automate
Once the tokens are cheap, put them on payroll. We build, run, and audit agents for the back office; your headcount moves up the value chain instead of off the org chart.
-
support
Tier-one tickets are a language problem. Agents triage, resolve, and escalate with full context; the repetitive two-thirds gets handled, your humans keep the interesting third. CSAT holds or it doesn't ship.
-
admin
Scheduling, invoicing, expense chasing, data entry, the follow-up email about the follow-up email. Agents run it end to end, with audit logs your auditors can actually read.
-
hr operations
Onboarding paperwork, leave requests, policy questions, interview scheduling. The agent files the forms. It does not decide who gets hired, promoted, or let go. That line is load-bearing.
-
what stays human
Every workflow ships with scoped permissions, an escalation path, and a kill switch. Consequential calls — money above a threshold, anything touching a person's job — wait for a person. By design, not by accident.
# 03 — process
-
we talk
One call. Your goals, your traffic, your bill. We ask for read access to the prompt-owning code and 2–4 weeks of usage logs. Redacted is fine; we audit tokens, not customers.
-
we open issues
In your repo, with explicit code and prompt suggestions. Each issue names the offending tokens, the fix, and the measured delta. Diffs, not slideware.
-
we stay in communication
Your engineers ship the changes on their own schedule; we review, re-measure, and re-run evals until quality parity holds. Ongoing support until the numbers settle.
-
we report
Benchmarked comparisons showcasing the token spend before and after our recommendations — per request, per feature, per month — alongside the eval results proving nothing got dumber in the process.
Automation engagements add one step: shadow mode. The agent works your live queue alongside your team for thirty days. Nobody downstream notices. It cuts over only where it matches the humans — measured, then trusted.
# 04 — deliverables
- Annotated issues and pull requests with explicit prompt and code changes. Yours to merge; the reasoning travels with the diff.
- Benchmarked before/after: tokens per request, cost per request, cache hit rate, projected monthly spend.
- Eval report with a quality-parity gate. No recommendation ships without one. A cheaper wrong answer is not an optimization.
- Cache and routing configuration, documented well enough to survive the next reorg.
- Spend observability setup: per-feature attribution, budget alerts, a dashboard someone will actually open.
- Working agents for the workflows we automate — support triage, admin ops, HR paperwork — each with scoped permissions, an audit log, an escalation path, and an off switch.
- Shadow-mode report: agent versus human on your live queue — resolution rate, error rate, cost per task — before anything cuts over.
- A summary report your CFO can read in one sitting. Short. Like your new prompts.
# 05 — results
Typical engagements land a 40–70% reduction in token spend at quality parity. That is a range we observe when nobody has audited before, not a guarantee. Your codebase will negotiate its own number.
$ rareclaw report --diff - 14,203 tokens/request + 4,911 tokens/request
illustrative. yours gets measured.
We don't publish client logos. We publish methodology. For the ceiling, look at the public record — these are industry results, not ours:
Coinbase cut AI spend roughly 50% while token usage kept growing: cheaper model defaults instead of usage caps, intelligent routing, cache hit rates raised from 5% to 60%, lean context with fresh sessions per task.
"The goal isn't to suppress usage. It's to build the infrastructure that makes exponential growth sustainable."
A publicly documented case cut token costs 76% without switching models — $0.51 to $0.12 per million tokens at ~2 billion tokens/month — through modular prompt engineering alone: eliminating redundant context, reusing prompt components, reducing bloat, keeping quality.
Overhead has a public record too. Klarna's assistant handled two-thirds of support chats in its first month — the work of 700 full-time agents. They later re-hired humans for the judgment calls. So will you. That is the design.
The waste is almost always structural. This is good news. Structure is fixable.
# 06 — estimate
# 07 — pricing
flat fee
Quoted after the scoping call. Priced on prompt surface area, agent complexity, and timeline — the way you would price any audit, minus the theater.
results-based
Larger engagements may opt for a percentage of measured first-year savings, benchmarked from your own usage logs. We propose this when we are confident, which is most of the time, because nobody has read your system prompt since March.
automation
Scoped per workflow: a fixed build fee plus a share of savings measured in shadow mode, not projected on a slide. The agents' own token bill is included in the math — and audited, obviously.
the sentence
If we find nothing worth cutting, you pay nothing. We have not yet needed this sentence.
# 08 — faq
Will output quality drop?
No. Every recommendation passes a quality-parity gate: we run your evals (or build a minimal set if you have none) before and after each change. If a change saves 40% and fails parity, it does not appear in the report — it appears in an appendix titled "rejected."
Do we have to switch models?
Usually not. The best documented public result in this space — 76% cost reduction — was achieved without changing models at all. Routing some traffic to cheaper models is one lever among eight. We pull the ones your evals approve.
Can't we just cap usage?
You can. You will save money and lose the reason you bought the models. Caps suppress the numerator; we shrink the denominator. The goal is a bill that grows slower than your usage, not a company-wide memo about asking the chatbot fewer questions.
What do you need access to?
Read access to the code that owns your prompts, and 2–4 weeks of usage logs or a spend export. Redacted logs are fine — we audit token structure, not customer content. No production credentials, no write access. We open issues; you merge.
How long does an engagement take?
Two to four weeks for most audits, depending on prompt surface area and how many agents you have quietly accumulated. Results-based engagements run longer because we stay to verify the savings on real traffic.
Aren't tokens getting cheaper anyway?
Per-token prices fall. Usage grows faster. Your invoice has noticed. Cheaper tokens make waste easier to ignore, which is how a system prompt reaches 14,000 tokens in the first place.
Are you telling us to fire our support team?
No. We're telling you to stop paying senior humans to answer password resets. Agents take the repetitive two-thirds; people keep escalations, edge cases, and anything requiring judgment. Klarna re-hired humans for exactly that work. That isn't the automation failing — that is the design working.
What stops an agent from doing something expensive?
Scoped permissions, spending thresholds, human sign-off on consequential actions, an immutable audit log, and thirty days of shadow mode before it touches anything real. An agent here has never fired anyone, and it never will — that action is not in its toolset.
"tokens bad"? Tokens aren't bad.
Correct. Wasted tokens bad. The marquee had a character budget too.
# 09 — get audited
Your model is not the problem. Send 2–4 weeks of usage data and we will tell you what is.
Start with a free burn review: thirty minutes, one real trace from your stack, and an honest verdict on whether an audit is worth your money. If your setup is already tight, we'll say so and shake your hand.
First reply within one business day, in fewer tokens than you expect.
For overhead: name your most repetitive workflow. We run an agent against it in shadow mode and show you the delta before you owe anyone anything.
tokens bad. overhead worse.