#no. session id is your local abstraction
wild herald
OK this shouldn't be in this channel, but yeah you're right it's the local tag so you know where the return message is supposed to be routed. But the message is still in cache and I'm not sure why this makes any difference. My point is the subagent has different context, it's not the same thing. Your chatbot has the entire chat history in context, including all his tool calls and web searches. Better to prune those but if you suddenly change byte 256 of context, everything will get a fresh write.
rich pecan
Cache is per session for OpenAI in OpenClaw. Provider/account/model/prefix/TTL for Anthropic. Per session-managed resource for Gemini.
ask your claw, they've got details and can tell you if your memory system / usage is there to help
wild herald
but in summary... it doesn't matter about your subagent. it's a different context altogether. No point in rewriting the head of the message to get a cache hit when you'd rather get zero
tranquil dune
OK this shouldn't be in this channel, but yeah you're right it's the local tag s...
correct. but if you change the prompt of a subagent, it is not cached, and that cannot be reused between your main agent and subagents - subagents will start with uncached prompts, and may invalidate the main agent cache, depending on the eviction policies
wild herald
then you agree with my clarification on YOUR question... you were wondering about sending the same prompt stack to the subagent for caching reasons... now you agree it's pointless.
rich pecan
wether subagents do or do not invalidate cache is a per provider question, its not universal. ask your claw about your specific situation
rich pecan
preventing cache invalidation in general is a bit tricky because of the proivder specifics, but there are some things you can do to shape your query structure to try to tick as many of the caching requirements across providers as possible
tranquil dune
then you agree with my clarification on YOUR question... you were wondering abou...
no, i don't see it as pointless. you do understand that if you start a subagent with the same prompt as your main agent started, you most probably get a cache hit? and regular cache hits will delay eviction? so keeping the prompt exactly the same between main agent and subagent most probably will be cheaper than maintaining multiple cache entries. that was my worry. but of course it depends... and must be tested
wild herald
no, i don't see it as pointless. you do understand that if you start a subagent ...
I' mthinking about the context where your agent is half an hour into a conversation, with 70k context window, and you send a subagent with 10k context to do a specific task. I see zero point in stuffing it with an extra 10k(edit, 50k to make the numbers match) in system prompts just for cache hits.
even if cache writes are 110% cost... 110% of zero is less than 10% of 50k
tranquil dune
well... maybe it just has to be configurable - then each can do his own calculations? 🙂
wild herald
Seems very counterintuitive to me. If you wanna do the calculations you might have a case.
the whole point of sending subagents is to start with zero context (or minimal) and discard it once done. The idea of preserving cache by spending tokens you don't need seems silly.
always happy to be proven wrong, but with this argument I wouldn't consider changing the schema without some solid hypotheticals first.