refactor!: rebrand CCAM to AgentHub
Clean break, no compatibility alias. Renames the product name, the CLI binary (`ccam` -> `agenthub`), the env var prefix (`CCAM_` -> `AGENTHUB_`), the Prometheus metric namespace (`ccam_*` -> `agenthub_*`), the tmux session prefix (`ccam-lane-<id>` -> `agenthub-lane-<id>`), the per-repo runtime profile directory (`.ccam/profile` -> `.agenthub/profile`), the lanes state root (`~/.claude/ccam-lanes` -> `~/.claude/agenthub-lanes`), the bundled plugins (`plugins/ccam*` -> `plugins/agenthub*`) and their slash commands (`/ccam-doctor` -> `/agenthub-doctor`, `/ccam:*` -> `/agenthub:*`). Because there is no alias, an existing install has to be updated by hand: rename its `.ccam/profile` directory and any `CCAM_*` variables, and reinstall the plugin under its new name. Two other name families are deliberately left alone here, since they are not just strings: the `Claude-Code-Monitor` repository/marketplace name, and the `agent-dashboard` npm package plus its `~/.claude/agent-dashboard` runtime directory, which holds the live database and needs a migration rather than a rename. Verified: server 1406/1406, client 459/459, `grep -i ccam` clean across tracked files, `openapi.yaml` regenerated (95 paths, unchanged count).
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
description: >
|
||||
Suggest concrete optimizations for Claude Code usage based on historical
|
||||
session data. Covers cost reduction, speed improvement, error prevention,
|
||||
and workflow efficiency. Use for data-driven optimization planning.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Optimization Suggest
|
||||
|
||||
Generate data-driven optimization recommendations for Claude Code usage.
|
||||
|
||||
## Input
|
||||
|
||||
The user provides: **$ARGUMENTS**
|
||||
|
||||
This may be:
|
||||
- "all" or empty (default: comprehensive optimization scan)
|
||||
- "cost" for cost reduction focus
|
||||
- "speed" for performance/speed focus
|
||||
- "quality" for error reduction focus
|
||||
- "efficiency" for workflow efficiency focus
|
||||
|
||||
## Procedure
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Gather optimization data** from `http://localhost:4820`:
|
||||
- `GET /api/sessions?limit=200` — session history
|
||||
- `GET /api/analytics` — tool and token analytics
|
||||
- `GET /api/pricing/cost` — cost data
|
||||
- `GET /api/pricing` — pricing rules for model comparison
|
||||
- Sample event streams for behavioral analysis
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Analyze optimization opportunities**:
|
||||
|
||||
### 💰 Cost Optimization
|
||||
- **Model downgrade opportunities**: Tasks completed with expensive models that could use cheaper ones
|
||||
- Compare success rates per model per task type
|
||||
- Calculate savings from model substitution
|
||||
- **Cache optimization**: Sessions with low cache hit rates
|
||||
- Identify sessions that could benefit from better prompt caching
|
||||
- **Early termination**: Sessions that ran longer than needed
|
||||
- Detect sessions where useful work completed well before session end
|
||||
- **Compaction reduction**: Sessions hitting context limits
|
||||
- Suggest breaking large tasks into smaller sessions
|
||||
|
||||
### ⚡ Speed Optimization
|
||||
- **Tool selection**: Faster alternatives for commonly-used tool patterns
|
||||
- **Subagent parallelization**: Tasks that could run in parallel
|
||||
- **Session planning**: Better upfront context to reduce back-and-forth
|
||||
- **Preemptive context loading**: Frequently needed files/context
|
||||
|
||||
### 🛡 Quality Optimization
|
||||
- **Error prevention**: Common error patterns with preventive measures
|
||||
- **Tool reliability**: Tools with high failure rates and alternatives
|
||||
- **Validation gaps**: Sessions lacking verification steps
|
||||
- **Recovery strategies**: Better error handling patterns
|
||||
|
||||
### 🔄 Workflow Optimization
|
||||
- **Session sizing**: Optimal session scope based on historical success
|
||||
- **Task decomposition**: Complex sessions that should be split
|
||||
- **Automation candidates**: Repetitive workflows to automate
|
||||
- **Knowledge reuse**: Patterns where previous session context could help
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Quantify each recommendation**:
|
||||
- Estimated impact (cost savings $, time savings %, error reduction %)
|
||||
- Implementation effort (low/medium/high)
|
||||
- Confidence level based on data available
|
||||
- Priority score = Impact × Confidence / Effort
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Format
|
||||
|
||||
Present as a prioritized optimization plan:
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Recommendation | Category | Impact | Effort | Priority |
|
||||
|---|---------------|----------|--------|--------|----------|
|
||||
| 1 | Specific action | 💰/⚡/🛡/🔄 | High | Low | ★★★★★ |
|
||||
| 2 | Specific action | ... | ... | ... | ★★★★☆ |
|
||||
|
||||
For the top 5 recommendations, include:
|
||||
- Detailed explanation with supporting data
|
||||
- Step-by-step implementation guide
|
||||
- Expected before/after metrics
|
||||
- How to measure success
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user