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.

$ rareclaw --services
01  token audits
    the bill, audited down
02  overhead automation
    admin, hr, support — by agents
40–70%*
typical spend reduction at quality parity
5% → 60%*
cache hit rate, public case — a choice, not a fate
$0.51 → $0.12*
per 1M tokens — same model, public case

# 01 — what we audit

Every token your product ingests or emits is a line item. We read the line items.

# 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.

# 03 — process

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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

# 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.

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."

— Brian Armstrong, on Coinbase's AI spend

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

$ rareclaw estimate --spend 20000 --trim 30 --cache +40 --route 20
# it's free.

estimate only. the audit will disagree with this calculator. the audit wins.

assumptions — dispute them
input tokens        ≈ 70% of spend           (inputShare = 0.70)
cached input reads  bill at 10% of list      (cacheDiscount = 0.90)
cheaper tier        bills at 20% of default  (routeDiscount = 0.80)

newSpend = S × [ 0.70 × (1 − trim) × (1 − 0.90 × cacheUplift)
               + 0.30 ] × (1 − 0.80 × routedShare)

savings display-capped at 70%.
anything above that, we'd rather prove than promise.
$ rareclaw estimate --overhead
# shadow mode is free. cutover isn't.

estimate only. the shadow-mode pilot will disagree with this calculator. the pilot wins.

assumptions — dispute them
support savings    = tickets × cost × deflected
busywork savings   = hours × 4.33 wks × rate × automated
agents' token bill ≈ 10% of gross savings  (audited, so it shrinks)

net = support + busywork − token bill
consequential actions stay human. no slider changes that.

# 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.

$ rareclaw audit --dry-run # it's free
$ rareclaw automate --shadow # watch it work first

tokens bad. overhead worse.