<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>DEV Community: Cam</title>
    <description>The latest articles on DEV Community by Cam (@camj78).</description>
    <link>https://dev.to/camj78</link>
    
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://dev.to/feed/camj78"/>
    <language>en</language>
    <item>
      <title>I shipped a prompt that silently exploded our API bill — so I built a linter for prompts</title>
      <dc:creator>Cam</dc:creator>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2026 14:13:08 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>https://dev.to/camj78/i-shipped-a-prompt-that-silently-exploded-our-api-bill-so-i-built-a-linter-for-prompts-3310</link>
      <guid>https://dev.to/camj78/i-shipped-a-prompt-that-silently-exploded-our-api-bill-so-i-built-a-linter-for-prompts-3310</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;A few weeks ago one of my prompts failed in production.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Nothing crashed. No errors were thrown.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;But overnight, our API bill spiked because the prompt started generating extremely long responses.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;At first I assumed it was a model change or config issue. But after digging in, the real problem was simpler:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;We had no way to validate prompts before they ran.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;We lint code.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;
We test code.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;
But most teams don’t analyze prompts.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;So I built a small CLI tool called &lt;strong&gt;CostGuardAI&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;It analyzes prompts &lt;em&gt;before they run&lt;/em&gt; and flags structural risks like:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;prompt injection / jailbreak surface
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;instruction ambiguity
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;conflicting directives
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;unconstrained outputs (hallucination risk)
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;token explosion / context misuse
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The idea is simple: treat prompts like code and run static analysis on them.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h3&gt;
  
  
  Example
&lt;/h3&gt;



&lt;div class="highlight js-code-highlight"&gt;
&lt;pre class="highlight shell"&gt;&lt;code&gt;npm &lt;span class="nb"&gt;install&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span class="nt"&gt;-g&lt;/span&gt; @camj78/costguardai
costguardai analyze my-prompt.txt
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;



&lt;p&gt;It outputs a &lt;strong&gt;CostGuardAI Safety Score (0–100, higher = safer)&lt;/strong&gt; and highlights what’s driving the risk.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The goal isn’t to predict exact model behavior — that’s not possible statically.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;It’s closer to a linter: catching prompt structures that tend to break in production.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;For teams deploying LLM features, this helps catch issues before they reach users.&lt;/p&gt;




&lt;p&gt;It’s still early, but I’m curious how others here are handling prompt validation.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Are you testing prompts, reviewing them manually, or just shipping and monitoring?&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
      <category>ai</category>
      <category>llm</category>
      <category>opensource</category>
      <category>devtools</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
