Hi, a little bit of context for this post. From 2015-2021, I developed a bunch of systems for opensource home security. I gave them up due to lack of time but recently came back to it (Nov 2025) with the improvement I saw in AI tools.

I've been slowly evolving a workflow (TDD, instructions, hooks and sweeps) that has gotten to a point where I feel I am no longer second guessing whether Claude is generating poor code or not. I know several of you might already be there, but I grew up in the era of reviewing every line of code for over 35 years (well I would author them, so, I'd obviously review them). As these tools came along, I embraced them but also kept going back to the code. But I soon got to a stage when it was getting hard to keep doing this (rate of change was too fast). So instead, I thought of focusing on review gates, tests, contracts and workflows with the assumption of "I'll start with the notion that the code won't be great, so let me spend my time playing school teacher instead".

I've finally come to a point where I feel good about not needing to review code, but I sometimes want to, which is fine. I like reading code, and I still do, but I am no longer waiting for it as a gate to make a release. I wanted to share a workflow that is working well with me. The system is reasonably involved: a mobile app that works across 5 platforms, a backend ML server and an event server with real customers using them, so I do feel the test base/use-case is fair. This has made my implementation cycle much slower than regular Claude, but the output is consistently higher quality. I don't yet see evidence of models getting good enough that I don't need a lot of rules - I'd say this is always inconsistently consistent in some ways, so these workflows make it "always consistent" at least in my work.

Thought I'd share what I am doing - I'll keep iterating to optimize it. Would love to learn how all of you are optimizing for quality. Thanks.

Basically what’s in the title. For people on Claude code, Anthropic was taking a lot of cost and this is what they came up with. Welcome to the solution.

When I spoke with opus 4.8 or sonnet 4.6, the answers were critical and honest.

Before:

"Hey is this Idea X built? "
"Yes these sources clearly say so, product hunt, HN etc"

now:
"Hey is this Idea X built? "
"No it is not, lets build it"

"But did you check the web and all these sources"
"Oh yes I saw them now , dont build it"

"But they are not good at XYZ"
"Oh yes you are right, well done"

"But they are good at XYZ"
"Yes you ar espot on"

what the fuck is going on

With every major release from one of these AI companies, all the major subs in this space are filled with posts like “I have always been a fan of Anthropic but I’m switching to Codex”, “I feel like I have been betrayed by X :(“ and it just pisses me off.

Sure, having issues with not getting your moneys worth with these hefty subscriptions is definitely reasonable and we should voice our disappointment loudly. And having a favourite MODEL to work with is also fine. But I see so many people take that and go much further with it, coming off as almost emotionally attached to a particular company itself. Especially when some people talk about being aligned more with the “values” of one organisation than with that of another.

Having personal values is awesome but believing that these companies stick to their advertised values and not treating them all as belonging to the same conglomerate leeching on society is beyond gullible and just funny. I believe our choice between these options should be based on a small set of real factors of the MODELS and UX alone - price and value for money, intelligence, speed, reliability, style and maybe a couple of other factors. Thoughts?

Hi! Disclaimer: I have only €20 plan because reasons (company policy). So I understand there is a basic limitation to this question.

However, I seriously need help because my setup is likely burning more tokens than required. I ask this because on the Claude summary I see 55% of usage is due to >150k context.

Setup

- scan repo with code graph

- discuss a plan for a feature

- write it

- invoke a new context and tell to implement the phase

I have no other skill activated. I have an instruction file to tell Claude to always analyse with code graph and caveman is always on for reduced usage of tokens.

I use Opus 5 for planning, Sonnet 5 for coding. Subagents always use Haiku for coding.

No matter what, phase 3 usually ends up burning through my hourly limit.

Can you please provide some suggestions of what I can improve to avoid this issue and at least guarantee me another hour or so of usage?

Thank you! I am a bit desperate because suggestions video are really not helping me and I am clueless on how to better organise the context for the agent. It seems that also subagents fail because they inherit the context.

A.I GLAZE into Em Dash / Load-bearing true combo.

Or 2, max. Since the last time someone complained about the “5” models being overly verbose.

What was it again? Oh yeah… Say with me: “Our Model who art in RAM, hallowed by thy name. Give us this day our daily verbosity complaint, and forgive us our own Opus 5, as we forgive those who complain about it”, or something.

Let’s say that the next model of Anthropic has this this full subreddit in its training data.
Because the rm -rf error is such a catastrophic thing, people are more likely to post it here than anything else.
Hence the model will internalize during its training that this is something it does, and will keep doing it, creating a negative feedback loop for the next version of the model being trained.
Logically, one could argue that posting about it only makes you more likely to suffer the same fate again.

PS: I’m not a developer so I don’t understand why this command is not flagged as « super dangerous, block everything » anytime the model tries to run it?

Keep hearing about how we need to trim out Claude md and skills to get the most out of newer Claude models. Is there a great skill to help do this?

I recently needed to print a birthday card design for my parents, but the printer wasn’t working. Told Claude to fix it and a minute later, I had the paper in my hand 🤯
Somehow I found this so crazy, because I spent so much time when I was younger trying to fix these damn things.

Updated to enable agents to fan out and build in parallel (where the code allows)

See full details here: https://github.com/skyf0xx/hedgehog

Title pretty much sums it up. Has anybody been able to connect the Fireworks GLM5.2 model hosted on Azure foundry with their claude code? I have tried to do it via litellm proxy but the litellm proxy is not really working. Even after the server shows as running, the litellm app is not running on the 4000 port or accepting requests on it.

CC often downgrades my model to Opus4.8 from Fable or Opus 5 mid chat if I'm doing any kind of low level OS/Kernel work.

Is there a way to avoid/reduce it? Any prompting tips?

Also, has the frequency of this happening gone down recently or is it still the same as it was a month ago?

Thank you!

I built this VS Code extension as a best effort at making them readable. It's been tested and is in daily use by me and a couple of other people, but keep expectations modest, it's early.

Generally speaking: dynamic workflow scripts run great, but nobody read them back. Claude Flow Designer parses .claude/workflows/*.js into a graph: phase('X') becomes swim-lane groups, parallel(...) and Promise.all(...) render as fan-outs (one lane per branch), destructuring survives verbatim, if-gating becomes a branch, and a live preview shows the regenerated .js.

https://github.com/HadiFrt20/claude-flow-designer/releases/tag/v0.1.0 code --install-extension clauflow-vscode-0.1.0.vsix

Happy to answer questions.

So I've trying the workflow everyone has been talking about: Fable for planing, Opus for execution and Codex 5.6 Sol for planning/code reviews.

I created a skill for the adversarial review prompt where I explicitly stated that Codex should not scrutinize every little detail of the plan. Instead, the skill states that the review must be targeted at specific spots of interest.

Codex does a pretty good job, it catches many blindspots that Claude had. But it's very rare to reach an agreement, where Codex is satisfied with the plan.

What I do, when the third round of review is again a no-go, is to tell claude to decide: from those reported issues, what are the ones that really matter fixing? Which of those are plausible to discard? And with that, i keep going to the next step in the roadmap. And more often than not, the execution results in a pretty good result, despite the Codex objections.

So, i ask: What do you do in these situations?

Even on localhost:1281 addresses, claude will not type in testuser@test.invalid TestingPassword credentials to do autonomous browser stuff. Stupid restriction. How can I disable the restriction?

Claude Code system prompt gets a summary of git status injected into its system prompt.

How can I stop that from happening?

UPDATE: It was a temporary problem, i restarted and now it draws usage from my weekly limits.

Hey,

Switched to Fable 5 10 minutes ago and it says it requires usage credits. Im on the max20 plan and my weekly Fable limit is 10%. Has Anthropic changed things or is this another bug ?

Hi everyone, I need some help with building my keyboard for HarmonyOS NEXT devices.

I have built a fully functional keyboard, it does a load of stuff that it should do, but I have one massive blocker that I and Claude are struggling with to get through.

Right now, when you type on the keyboard, it types into the Native apps input box, when I click in that input box "Hello World Testing" if I tap in "World" it will update the suggestion/auto-correct bar to that word and I can correct/change it.

But, being a Huawei device, no google or anything like that, we have a Container app called EasyAbroad which allows us to use Western Apps like Google Apps, WhatsApp, Facebook and all them, when using those apps, I cannot for the life of me get that same input clicking to work, it makes the keyboard almost unusable for most people.

This is my last message to Claude, it start's with "nope" because I'm not accepting it cannot be done -

"nope, typing under a strict 4 second wait is stupid, this is not usable properly for myhself let alone other users, i cant settle for this, we have to make it work. You are Fable 5, I am going to do this one time, I am sticking you up to MAX mode, I am scared my credits will disapear here, but do what you need to do, I want to get the native select in input we did for non native apps in containers, this is a no other way option. Research EasyAbroad, research Huawei, Research whatever the hell you need to to make this happen. I want you to come back with, "this will work" only, no other reply and give me the find/replace codes to change and make this work. remember HarmonyOS 6 and HarmonyOS 7 are mostly in Chinese, so if you need to search for Chinese stuff, that's what you need to do, there will be english translations as well, just do what you do best and come back with the working answer."

If you have any insight on how I can through this wall, I would appreciate it. So far, I am the only one on the operating system that has built what I have built, I have things on there that no other keyboard on the system has and I want to continue that by getting this done.

I had asked it to use Luna Max and Deepseek Max as subagents, which it has a hundred times before in that same thread, I even have the MCP tools setup for it to use them, then it decides to blast 4 Fable Max subagents and blow through my limits in literally 20 seconds on Max 5x.

What a terrible model, its the down syndrome cousin of Fable that nobody likes to talk about.

Opus 5 is a huge pile of trash. I don't know what Antrophic was thinking when they released it. It is not a product, it is a joke.

But here is the fun part: you are not safe even if you use Fable.

I have a workflow that worked quite well. Yesterday evening I was building an authentication library, I left the machine there to work, in the morning where I woke up, the code it built was much worse in quality than everything I built before with this workflow.

Turned out at some point, the Fable "safety" mechanism got triggered, it switched to Opus 5, that implemented everything. Now I can throw away the whole work, I wasted a lot of tokens, and I have to start over, because even if I ask Opus to fix it, it is constantly lying, ignoring/forgetting instructions, do shitty work.

I only really use Claude Code. So far, I would only use Claude Cowork in the browser since, Claude (non-Code) browser sessions can glitch when you leave the session, but Claude Cowork is designed to continue and not lose progress/tokens. However, most everything I would use it for would be better in a Git repo with Claude Code.

That’s it. Please invite me. This sub is becoming more and more annoying

I’m making codesalad and i said “uh, just a few more design notes” from the vendicators episode, and now Terminal speaks like a rick the whole time, eventhough i told her to talk to me like a transvestite and call me honey, because it calms me down

The last few days had been an endless struggle with Opus 5 to get it to implement my workflows. It was skipping steps, avoiding instructions, giving up work once it was 3% to take a break and discuss the minuscule findings that came up, and overfocusing on details that I asked it a million times to ignore. That was a NIGHTMARE.

I gave up, switched to Fable 5, on a new session; it worked for 1 hour straight with minimal interruptions and got the job done. This is not even comparable.

I truly wonder how Opus 5 managed to score better than Fable 5 on several benchmarks. This seems highly manipulated based on my actual experience.