Measure AI coding agents by cost per accepted change.
Claude Code, Codex and router debates often compare subscriptions, tokens or benchmarks. For a real team, the better unit is the accepted change: the patch, config or bug fix that actually survives review.
Start with the 4-line brief
No keys, no repo access. A rough paragraph is fine; we just need enough context to decide whether the 100 EUR audit has a practical route to test.
1. providers/models: 2. rough monthly spend or token volume: 3. workflow type: 4. one expensive session or failure loop:
Repo scan
Files, project rules, memories and broad searches loaded before the first useful edit.
Audit bucketPlanning
Architecture, task decomposition, risk calls and route choices that deserve higher reasoning.
Audit bucketEdits
Mechanical implementation and patching work that may not need the strongest model every time.
Audit bucketOutput and retries
Terminal logs, failing commands and recovery loops that quietly become the expensive workload.
Audit bucketFinal review
Diff review, tests, security, behavior and merge confidence after the code is changed.
Audit bucketAccepted-change worksheet
Task
One merged PR, accepted patch, shipped config, or resolved bug.
Human baseline
How long the same change would take without an agent.
Agent route
Claude Code, Codex, OpenRouter, local model, router, or mixed workflow.
Session buckets
Repo scan, planning, edits, output/retries, final review.
Accepted outcome
Merged, reverted, partially accepted, or abandoned.
True cost
Subscription pressure, API spend, retries, waiting time and human cleanup.
If you cannot fill this table for one task, switching brands is premature. First measure where the session actually spends value.
Decision rule
Route the expensive bucket, not the entire workflow.
A plan upgrade can be rational if planning and review are the bottleneck. A router, cheaper model or local fallback can be rational if scan, mechanical edits or retries are the leak. The audit is deciding which is true from one real workflow.
Why measure cost per accepted change instead of tokens?
Tokens matter, but coding-agent work is judged by accepted code. A cheap session that produces no usable patch can be more expensive than a premium review that prevents a bad merge.
Does this replace Claude Code or Codex benchmarking?
No. It gives a workflow-level accounting layer. You still compare tools, but against the same real task buckets: scan, plan, edit, retry and review.
When should I switch models or providers?
Switch the bucket first. If repo scan or retries dominate, reduce context and route routine work cheaper. If planning or review dominates, the premium model may still be the right route.
When is a paid routing audit useful?
It is useful when a team has repeated quota pain, a visible LLM bill, unclear router choices, or expensive agent loops and needs a concrete routing policy for real workflows.
When this becomes a 100 EUR audit
If the accepted-change worksheet shows a real cost, quota or retry problem, send the 4-line brief. We turn it into a 48h route map: what stays premium, what moves cheaper, what context to stop sending and what fallback to test.
Start 4-line brief