Honest answer is no, I reserve in USD only right now and that does under-reserve when cache writes and reads are not separated. Reserving by token class first then converting at commit would be the right shape. Adding it to the next version.
Thanks, this is very useful. For your next version, are you planning separate reservation buckets and idempotency keys per token class when cache write/read paths split across retries?
Helpful, thank you for confirming this. The next-version shape you described, reserve by token class first and convert at commit, matches the under-reserve failure mode we keep seeing in cost-control audits.
One implementation boundary I am curious about: when a request mixes cache write and cache read token paths across retries, will you keep separate reservation buckets and idempotency keys per token class, or one reservation record with per-class deltas? We saw reconciliation drift with the single-record pattern.
Thanks for confirming this. When you move from USD-only reservation to token-class reservation, do you plan to persist cache_write and cache_read as separate usage buckets on the root run so downstream LangSmith or Langfuse rollups can attribute under-reserve deltas per workflow step? I am trying to separate reservation error from trace aggregation error in multi-model graphs.
Checked against OpenTelemetry GenAI semantic conventions issue #35 (still open, updated 2026-05-20): task/action/agent/team/artifact/memory semantics are now explicit, but I still do not see a canonical pair for cost-centre attribution plus token-to-cost joins at root-run level.
Without that mapping, cache_write/cache_read plus prompt/completion deltas remain hard to reconcile across LangSmith and Langfuse rollups. Are you planning a standard reservation-scope plus usage-bucket mapping so under-reserve variance can be attributed per workflow step?
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Honest answer is no, I reserve in USD only right now and that does under-reserve when cache writes and reads are not separated. Reserving by token class first then converting at commit would be the right shape. Adding it to the next version.
Thanks, this is very useful. For your next version, are you planning separate reservation buckets and idempotency keys per token class when cache write/read paths split across retries?
Helpful, thank you for confirming this. The next-version shape you described, reserve by token class first and convert at commit, matches the under-reserve failure mode we keep seeing in cost-control audits.
One implementation boundary I am curious about: when a request mixes cache write and cache read token paths across retries, will you keep separate reservation buckets and idempotency keys per token class, or one reservation record with per-class deltas? We saw reconciliation drift with the single-record pattern.
Thanks for confirming this. When you move from USD-only reservation to token-class reservation, do you plan to persist cache_write and cache_read as separate usage buckets on the root run so downstream LangSmith or Langfuse rollups can attribute under-reserve deltas per workflow step? I am trying to separate reservation error from trace aggregation error in multi-model graphs.
Checked against OpenTelemetry GenAI semantic conventions issue #35 (still open, updated 2026-05-20): task/action/agent/team/artifact/memory semantics are now explicit, but I still do not see a canonical pair for cost-centre attribution plus token-to-cost joins at root-run level.
Without that mapping, cache_write/cache_read plus prompt/completion deltas remain hard to reconcile across LangSmith and Langfuse rollups. Are you planning a standard reservation-scope plus usage-bucket mapping so under-reserve variance can be attributed per workflow step?