agentsclimarketplace
Sign in

Gpu cost planning

Skill Amey-Thakur/AI-SKILLS/skills/gpu-ai-infrastructure/gpu-cost-planning

Plan GPU spend by comparing owned hardware, reserved cloud, and on-demand against real utilization and lead time, so you commit at the right break-even. Use when deciding whether to buy GPUs, reserve cloud capacity, or burst on-demand for a workload.From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add Amey-Thakur/AI-SKILLS --skill gpu-cost-planning

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

2 things to look at

  • 22 days oldThe repository was created 22 days ago. New is not bad, but a brand new repository carrying a familiar-sounding name is the shape a typosquat arrives in, and there has been no time for anyone else to find a problem with it.
  • 4 stars4 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

SKILL.md

3.4 KB, 753 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

GPU cost planning

An H100 costs roughly the same to own for a year as to rent on-demand for a few months, so the buy-versus-rent answer turns entirely on how busy the card will actually be. Teams overspend by reserving for peak or underspend by bursting a steady workload on on-demand rates. The decision is arithmetic once you have an honest utilization number.

Method

  1. Establish a true duty cycle first. Pull weeks of fleet utilization (see gpu-utilization-monitoring) and compute the fraction of hours GPUs do real work, not merely sit allocated. A steady duty cycle above 70 percent argues for owning or reserving; a spiky 20 percent with idle nights argues for on-demand or spot. Plan on measured hours, not aspirational ones.
  2. Compute the break-even honestly. Amortize owned hardware over a useful life near three years, add power, cooling, networking, and colo, then divide by expected busy GPU-hours to get a real dollar-per-GPU-hour. Set it against reserved cloud, a one-to-three-year commit at roughly 40 to 60 percent off on-demand, and against on-demand list. Owning usually wins only above about 60 to 70 percent sustained utilization.
  3. Layer commitment to the demand curve. Buy or reserve the steady baseline, burst the peaks on on-demand, and run interruptible work such as checkpointed batch training on spot at a 60 to 90 percent discount. Never reserve for peak: the reserved GPUs you cannot keep busy erase their own discount.
  4. Price in lead time and capacity queues. New H100 or H200 capacity carries weeks-to-months lead time for owned hardware and can be quota-limited or waitlisted even in the cloud. If the roadmap needs GPUs in Q3, a cheaper owned option arriving in Q4 is not cheaper. Hold a reserved or on-demand bridge for the gap.
  5. Count total cost, not the sticker. Add interconnect (InfiniBand or NVLink switches), storage, egress, the ops headcount to run a cluster, and idle-time overhead. Cloud folds these into the hourly rate; owned hides them. Egress and cross-zone traffic in particular can dwarf the compute line for data-heavy jobs.
  6. Revisit on a fixed cadence. GPU prices, new silicon that can cut cost per token by two to three times, and your own utilization all move. Re-run the break-even quarterly and before any multi-year commit, and keep the commitment horizon shorter than the hardware stays competitive.

Litmus tests

  • Is the buy-versus-rent call backed by a measured duty cycle, not a hoped-for one?
  • Does the break-even include power, cooling, networking, and ops, not just the card?
  • Is the steady baseline committed and only the spiky peak left on on-demand or spot?
  • Does the plan account for procurement lead time and cloud capacity quotas?

Boundaries

This sizes and sources capacity; it does not tune the workloads that fill it or negotiate the contract. Utilization inputs come from monitoring (gpu-utilization-monitoring), and raising real utilization through sharing is a separate lever (gpu-sharing-mig). Final commitments still depend on your finance team's cost of capital and risk tolerance.

What ships with it

Read from the repository

Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.

Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most plan spec skills give in 753 tokens

Counted across 1,099 of the 1,860 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-07

  • Ask one question at a timein 51 of 1099
  • Break plans into vertical slicesin 29 of 1099, across 11 files
  • Publish issues in dependency orderin 27 of 1099, across 9 files
  • Iterate until user approves the breakdownin 25 of 1099, across 7 files
  • Explore the repository to understand the codebase statein 24 of 1099, across 7 files
  • Use domain glossary vocabularyin 23 of 1099, across 5 files
  • Apply correct triage labels to published issuesin 23 of 1099, across 5 files
  • Prefer AFK slices over HITLin 22 of 1099, across 7 files
  • Write a specification before writing any codein 22 of 1099, across 14 files
  • Write failing tests before implementation codein 22 of 1099, across 20 files
  • Ask clarifying questions until requirements are concretein 21 of 1099, across 13 files
  • Respect existing architecture decision recordsin 20 of 1099, across 5 files

Said here and by no other author read

  • establish true GPU duty cycle first
  • use measured hours not aspirational ones
  • compute honest break-even cost per GPU-hour
  • amortize owned hardware over near three years
  • layer commitments to the demand curve
  • buy or reserve steady baseline capacity

Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 326,861. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.