Agent use case pack · Vibe coding

Test a token-saving prompt against hidden tests before you adopt it

by PaperChaseWebb

One builder ran a popular 'save tokens' prompt for Claude Code over 32 runs with hidden tests. Total cost fell about 9 percent on Opus and 6 percent on Sonnet, up to 20 percent on review tasks and close to zero on bug fixes, with the same quality. Most of the cost was reading code, which the prompt barely touched.

Preview card for Test a token-saving prompt against hidden tests before you adopt it
Works withClaude CodePlain .md
Price
Free
Difficulty
Intermediate
Setup
30 min
Format
.md file
Free sample

test-a-token-saving-prompt-against-hidden-tests-before-you-adopt-it.md · 2 KB · direct download, no signup

Download free

What you end up with

32 runs is a small sample and the numbers are his own.

What you get

  • A plain-language summary of the workflow
  • A fill-in prompt template
  • What to watch out for
  • A link to the original source

Who it is for

Builders who already use AI agents and want a proven workflow they can copy into their own project.

Works with

Claude CodePlain .md

Solid chips: the agent is named in this listing's own tools list. Dashed chip: Plain Markdown, so it also pastes into other agents such as Grok Bot, Hermes, OpenClaw or Muse. We list those as compatible by format only, not as tested.

Tools needed

Claude Codethe agent under test, on Opus and Sonnet
Hidden testsscore quality without the agent seeing them
You needAn AI coding agent or chat model
You needA small real task to try it on

Cost to run: Free with the agent plan you already use.
Time to result: One working session

How it works

  1. Pick 8 or more real tasks across types: bug fix, feature, review

    Pick 8 or more real tasks across types: bug fix, feature, review.

    Expected: Done before you move to the next step.

  2. Write hidden tests for each that the agent cannot see

    Write hidden tests for each that the agent cannot see.

    Expected: Done before you move to the next step.

  3. Run each task with and without the prompt, several times

    Run each task with and without the prompt, several times.

    Expected: Done before you move to the next step.

  4. Compare cost and pass rate per task type

    Compare cost and pass rate per task type.

    Expected: Done before you move to the next step.

  5. Adopt the prompt only where it saves money without losing quality

    Adopt the prompt only where it saves money without losing quality.

    Expected: Done before you move to the next step.

Sample prompt from the pack

Workflow template · Claude Code, Hidden tests
Apply this workflow to [your project]:
1. Pick 8 or more real tasks across types: bug fix, feature, review.
2. Write hidden tests for each that the agent cannot see.
3. Run each task with and without the prompt, several times.
4. Compare cost and pass rate per task type.
5. Adopt the prompt only where it saves money without losing quality.
Stop and ask me before anything irreversible: deploys, payments, sends or deletes.

Adapted by PaperChaseWebb. Not the original author's prompt.

Free preview of the file

test-a-token-saving-prompt-against-hidden-tests-before-you-adopt-it.md (excerpt)2 KB total
# Test a token-saving prompt against hidden tests before you adopt it

PaperChase agent use case (free feed entry), version 1.0. Source: [@mano_sec](https://x.com/mano_sec/status/2115571933899116804), 2026-10-28.

## What they did

He compared runs with and without the prompt across task types and checked results with tests the agent could not see. Savings were real but small, and concentrated where the agent writes a lot of prose (reviews), not where it reads a lot of code (bug fixes).

## Worth knowing

32 runs is a small sample and the numbers are his own. The method is what to copy: same tasks, with and without, hidden tests for quality, cost per task type. A separate builder claims 3 to 4 times fewer tokens by asking for a fresh-context follow-up prompt instead of compacting, which is self-reported and worth testing the same way.

Worth knowing

  • 32 runs is a small sample and the numbers are his own. The method is what to copy: same tasks, with and without, hidden tests for quality, cost per task type. A separate builder claims 3 to 4 times fewer tokens by asking for a fresh-context follow-up prompt instead of compacting, which is self-reported and worth testing the same way.
  • Figures are as reported by the original author and were not re-measured by us.

Questions

Where does this come from?

A public post credited to @mano_sec. Source: https://x.com/mano_sec/status/2115571933899116804

Is it free?

Yes. Feed entries are free to read and download.

Details

Version 1.0 · Updated Oct 29, 2026 · Markdown version of this page
License: Personal and commercial use. Credit the original source when you share the workflow. Download terms

claude-codetokenscostevalsmeasurement