Claude Code token burn is a routing problem before it is a billing problem.
If coding agents, API-backed dev tools or autonomous workflows are eating budget, DealsForge can audit the route in 48h: routine calls, context overhead, retries, fallbacks and provider choices.
Routine work using the strongest model
Classification, file discovery, draft transforms and first-pass edits often do not need the same model as final judgment.
Context loaded on every session
Project rules, docs, memories and repeated summaries can become a standing tax before useful work starts.
Retry loops without a stop condition
The expensive part is often paying for the same failure twice, then sending the cleanup to the strongest model again.
Provider choice before workflow shape
Switching providers helps only after you know which steps are routine, judgment-heavy, recovery-heavy or latency-sensitive.
What to send for the audit
- Coding agent or IDE workflow: Claude Code, Cursor, OpenCode, Cline-style tools, custom agents or API scripts
- Current providers/models and any router/proxy layer such as OpenRouter, LiteLLM, Portkey or Helicone
- Rough monthly usage, spend, quota pressure or example expensive sessions
- What feels unreliable: bad edits, long context, repeated retries, slow fallback or surprise bills
The 48h output
You get a practical route map: which steps can move to cheaper models, where to keep the strongest model, what context to stop loading by default, and where fallback/retry logic should change before provider switching.
No credentials are needed for the first pass. Start with providers, models, rough usage and one expensive example session.
Example audit output
A route map, not a generic PDF.
The real audit uses your stack. This sample shows the level of specificity the 48h delivery targets.
Workflow step
Repo scan and file discovery
Likely leak
Strong model sees the full repo context on every run
Audit route to test
Cheaper model or cached retrieval summary, strong model only when ambiguity is detected
Workflow step
First-pass code edit
Likely leak
Same premium route as final review
Audit route to test
Coding-specialized route with a hard retry budget and diff-size guardrail
Workflow step
Failed command recovery
Likely leak
Retry loop sends the same context back through the expensive path
Audit route to test
Failure classifier first, then targeted recovery prompt with only the failing command and diff
Get a 48h routing audit for Claude Code-style token burn.
Send your coding-agent stack, context habits, rough usage and pain points. We will separate routine, judgment and recovery steps before suggesting cheaper routes.