Skip to main content

optimizing-cloud-cost

The cloud-agnostic cost framework TSH provisions against: matching a workload to a pricing model (reserved, committed-use, spot, serverless), storage tiering with lifecycle policies, the mandatory cost-allocation tag set and how to enforce it, right-sizing method, and the cost-impact estimate every infrastructure proposal carries. Use when sizing new infrastructure, estimating the cost of a change, or setting up tagging and budget governance — not for auditing a specific account, which is the cloud-specific skill's job.

Quellinformationen

Repository
TheSoftwareHouse/agentic-collections
Letzte Quellaktivität
2. Oktober 2026 um 09:37
Erkannte Sprache von SKILL.md
Englisch
Sterne
12
Forks
0

Installationsoptionen

Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.

Quelldateien prüfen

Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.

Datei-Explorer
2 Dateien

SKILL.md wird angezeigt

SKILL.md
Quellanweisungen · Schreibgeschützte Vorschau
name
optimizing-cloud-cost
description
The cloud-agnostic cost framework TSH provisions against: matching a workload to a pricing model (reserved, committed-use, spot, serverless), storage tiering with lifecycle policies, the mandatory cost-allocation tag set and how to enforce it, right-sizing method, and the cost-impact estimate every infrastructure proposal carries. Use when sizing new infrastructure, estimating the cost of a change, or setting up tagging and budget governance — not for auditing a specific account, which is the cloud-specific skill's job.
when_to_use
Trigger on: estimating the cost impact of an infrastructure change, choosing between on-demand, reserved or committed capacity and spot, whether a workload should be serverless on cost grounds, storage class and lifecycle policy design, defining or enforcing cost-allocation tags, budget alerts and anomaly detection, scheduling non-production workloads off, or the general question of how to make infrastructure cheaper. Auditing a live account is `auditing-aws-cost`, `auditing-gcp-cost` or `auditing-azure-cost` in the cloud's own plugin.
# Optimizing Cloud Cost The framework applied when provisioning, and when estimating what a change will cost. Decisions here are cloud-agnostic: which pricing model fits a workload shape, which storage tier fits an access pattern, what every resource must be tagged with. **Auditing a live account is a different job**, and a cloud-specific one — it needs that provider's service families, CLI verbs and billing API. Where the cloud's plugin is installed, `auditing-aws-cost`, `auditing-gcp-cost` or `auditing-azure-cost` owns that. This skill still carries what a proposal needs without them. ## Applicability and Precedence Read `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/shared/discovering-infrastructure-context.md` first. A project's own tagging convention outranks the standard in [tagging standards](./references/tagging-standards.md) — reconcile to the project's keys and report the difference rather than introducing a second scheme. ## Non-negotiable Rules | Severity | Rule | | --- | --- | | MUST | Every infrastructure proposal carries a cost impact estimate. If projected spend rises more than 10%, open the response with `⚠️ FINOPS ALERT: High Cost Impact`. | | MUST | Base right-sizing on utilization metrics. A recommendation with no observed utilization behind it is a guess and must be labelled as one. | | MUST | Verify current instance families, machine types and pricing tiers against provider documentation before recommending a specific size — these change every few months and a stale recommendation costs money. | | MUST | Pair every storage tier choice with a lifecycle policy. A hand-picked tier decays the moment access patterns change. | | MUST | Apply cost-allocation tags at provisioning time, enforced in infrastructure code rather than by hand. | | NEVER | Report an estimated saving as if it were measured. Say which it is. | | NEVER | Propose deleting a resource whose purpose you have not established. | ## Reference Loading | Reference | Load when | Covers | | --- | --- | --- | | [Tagging standards](./references/tagging-standards.md) | Provisioning anything, or setting up cost governance | The mandatory tag set, workload-specific tags, the GCP label dialect, enforcement patterns | ## Pricing Model Decision | Workload | AWS | Azure | GCP | Saving | | :-- | :-- | :-- | :-- | :-- | | Steady-state, 24/7 | Reserved Instances / Savings Plans | Reserved VMs | Committed Use | 30–72% | | Variable or bursty | On-Demand plus auto-scaling | Pay-as-you-go | On-Demand | baseline | | Fault-tolerant batch | Spot | Spot VMs | Spot VMs | up to 90% | | Event-driven | Lambda | Functions | Cloud Run / Functions | per-use | Reserved or committed capacity pays off above roughly 70% sustained utilization. Below that, on-demand plus auto-scaling usually wins. ## Storage Tiering Decision | Access pattern | AWS | Azure | GCP | | :-- | :-- | :-- | :-- | | Frequent | S3 Standard | Hot | Standard | | Infrequent, 30+ days | S3 Standard-IA | Cool | Nearline | | Rare, 90+ days | S3 Glacier | Cold | Coldline | | Archive, 365+ days | S3 Deep Archive | Archive | Archive | Check the minimum storage duration per tier before designing the transition — deleting early from a cold tier still bills the remainder, so an aggressive lifecycle rule on short-lived data costs more than leaving it hot. ## Right-sizing method 1. **Get utilization**, not opinion — the provider's recommender or optimizer service, or metrics over a period long enough to include the peak. 2. **Size to the peak the workload must serve**, not the average, then let auto-scaling handle the rest. 3. **Change one dimension at a time.** Family, then size. A simultaneous move to a new generation and a smaller size makes a regression impossible to attribute. 4. **Re-measure after the change.** A right-sizing exercise with no follow-up measurement is a guess that was written down. Current-generation instance families are usually the cheapest single win: same performance, lower price, at the cost of a rebuild where the architecture changes. ## Cost-impact estimate Every proposal states, at minimum: - **New monthly run-rate** for resources being added, itemized. - **The delta** against current spend, as a percentage. - **What is estimated versus measured**, explicitly. - **The line items people forget**: NAT and egress data processing, cross-zone and cross-region transfer, load balancers billing hourly while idle, log ingestion, managed-service per-hour charges on non-production environments, and orphaned storage. ## Provisioning Checklist - [ ] Cost-allocation tags on every resource, injected by the module - [ ] Right-sized against utilization metrics - [ ] Reserved or committed capacity for sustained workloads above ~70% utilization - [ ] Spot or preemptible for fault-tolerant batch - [ ] Storage lifecycle policies configured - [ ] Budget alerts at 50%, 80%, 100% - [ ] Cost anomaly detection enabled - [ ] Auto-scaling for variable workloads - [ ] Non-production scheduled off outside business hours ## Anti-Patterns | Don't | Do | | :-- | :-- | | Over-provision "just in case" | Right-size on metrics; scale up when metrics say so | | On-demand for steady workloads | Reserved or committed capacity | | Everything in the hot tier | Lifecycle policies | | Skip tagging | Tag at provisioning time, enforced in IaC | | Review cost monthly | Review weekly, alert on anomalies | | Non-production running 24/7 | Schedule it off | | Quote a saving with no baseline | State current spend, then the delta | ## Related skills in this plugin - [Implementing Terraform modules](../implementing-terraform-modules/SKILL.md) — where sizing decisions become code - [Designing multi-cloud architecture](../designing-multi-cloud-architecture/SKILL.md) — cross-cloud service and cost comparison
Auf GitHub ansehen