No estimation
// Ship and hope.
Zero upfront cost, but scope creep, missed deadlines, and surprise failures. Fine for prototypes and throwaway experiments. Dangerous for anything with a deadline.
$ agent-estimate --compare
No estimation, manual, or agent-estimate — three approaches to scoping AI-agent work. Here's how they actually compare, on the dimensions that matter.
$ agent-estimate --compare --tldrscoring against: speed, accuracy, AI-fit, ci, ux────────────────────────────────────────────────✗ --no-estimate 0/5 risky for anything with a deadline~ --manual 2/5 slow, optimistic, AI-blind✓ --agent-estimate 5/5 calibrated, fast, CI-readyrecommendation ─────────────────────────────────use agent-estimate when AI agents touch your sprint.use manual for judgment-heavy planning.use no estimate for throwaway code only.→ see full breakdown below ↓
OVERVIEW
// Ship and hope.
Zero upfront cost, but scope creep, missed deadlines, and surprise failures. Fine for prototypes and throwaway experiments. Dangerous for anything with a deadline.
// Human guesses in planning meetings.
Slow (30–60 min per sprint), systematically optimistic, and blind to AI-specific speed differences. The estimates degrade as model capabilities change quarter to quarter.
// PERT math + METR data + dependency analysis.
Calibrated three-point estimates in ~2 seconds. Accounts for model-specific reliability limits, review overhead, and multi-agent parallelization. Improves via ae calibrate.
DIFF
$ agent-estimate --compare --table
ae calibrate DECIDE
# pick by project contextcase $context inprototype)estimator="--no-estimate"# throwaway, near-zero cost of being wrong;;mature_team)estimator="--manual"# judgment-heavy, distrusts automation;;ai_workflow)estimator="--agent-estimate"# AI agents, CI budgets, repeatable;;esac
Prototyping, hackathons, throwaway scripts where the cost of being wrong is near zero.
Established velocity, judgment-heavy work (design, strategy), or stakeholders who distrust automation.
Sprint planning with AI agents, CI pipelines with time budgets, multi-agent workflows, repeatable estimates across changing models.
FAQ
› Across 250+ validated dispatches (May 2026 corpus), 61% of estimates land within ±30% of actual duration out of the box. With calibration modifiers (spec clarity, warm context, agent fit), accuracy improves to 85% within ±30%. ae calibrate feeds actual results back in.
› Yes. Built-in METR thresholds cover Claude (Opus, Sonnet, Haiku), GPT-5.5/5.4, and Gemini 3.1 Pro. Custom thresholds for any model in your agent config YAML.
› PERT uses three time estimates per task — optimistic, most likely, pessimistic — to compute a weighted expected duration: (O + 4M + P) / 6. Produces a probability distribution rather than a single-point guess.
› Yes. The Claude Code plugin adds /estimate as a slash command. The GitHub Action runs estimates in CI and posts results as PR comments. Same structured output across all three.
$ start estimating
One command. No account. Reports in seconds.