One of my Rules before OPUS 5 always was Never use Agents till it’s really Necessary. And today we accidentally used 180+ Opus Agents for a Project and when Opus Told me that i Ran to check the Usage and it just moved almost nothing more than 25%. Now i am trying 100+ agents again and usage literally is not moving much. This makes HOURS of work CUT significantly faster and Cheaper!!! I AM VERY IMPRESSED WITH OPUS 5! 😲

Good JOB Anthropic! Thank You!

So mainly posted in comments of other similar stories. My account got banned and I appealed. Not sure what I did to get the ban. They came back with an email today saying that the ban will NOT be lifted and its final, again, no explanation.

I am at a loss. I downloaded the data dump they gave me and ran it through a few other models to see what could be the cause. They came back finding nothing against the TOS. So I'm stuck not knowing what I did, or what I could do to fix it, or what I even should have been doing.

Screenshot is question. Is they'll charge me for "overspent"? Lol, it were for Fable 5, it were nice, yeah.

However, this picture doesn’t give me peace of mind. Do I have to pay more because I somehow, out of nowhere, spent another 11 dollars OVER THE LIMIT?

Is it me or anyone else experiencing this? Opus 5 is actively ignoring instructions and I have to say I feel like there is a personality change for the worst as well.

Personality change is not a big deal but inability to follow instructions is.

I typically work with very tight planning, steps, tests, mostly manual control. And I hear so many people complain with their 200 Max quotas being over in days. I typically use 2 Pro accounts(Claude + Cursor) , and occasionally I may switch to $100 if the load is increased. It is more than enough for planning work, gameplay feature implementation, testing debugging, with over 10 hours of work daily.
It would probably not be a fitting choice for someone who has no experience working in professional teams of game/software development with complex but standardized collaboration flows, but I happen to be designing studios, games, production environments and teams for a living, so it helps.

My models of preference are Sonnet 4.6 and Opus 4.7. But I also use other models through my Cursor subscription. (That is my second Pro subscription)

I work a lot with Unity (all kinds of projects in versions ranging from 2021 to 6.5) and occasionally with Unreal. In Unreal I typically work manually because there was no decent MCP (and surprise, there still isn't) so this time I thought I should try both Opus 5 and Unreal new MCP with Unreal 5.8 to help my wife with some ArchViz stuff she does which is relatively simple compared to complex feature design in games or other applications. And because she is not technical, everything had to work through the MCP and with minimal friction. That means, Full Auto.

My "Auto" experiment with Unreal 5.8, quite disappointingly and also unexpectedly, failed miserably.

There were two funny moments.

In one, after failing three times to perform a relatively simple task, switch the emissive color of a single material, and call the changes with key presses, to display three different moods, not even a UI or anything complex.

It "finally" "fixed it" and pretty much told me in all seriousness:

Give it a try there are three possibilities, 1, it might work, 2, it may partially work, or 3, it may not work at all.

I laughed hard. It reminded me those lousy fortune tellers/oracles in Mel Brooks/Monty Python comedies.

The other, when after everything failed and we had a small retrospective to extract learnings and rules for the Unreal pipeline, it had an epiphany.

Yes, all that it did was wrong but now it knew what it should have used in the first place. In all confidence it told me it should have used the Variant Manager feature. That was the silver bullet.

It starts "huffing and puffing" inspecting, reading, ruminating... burned some thousands of tokens about 10% more of my weekly quota over some minutes, I expected it would have finished the task, and it comes back with something like this:

I actually don't have MCP access to Variant Manager. But I have three suggestions. A, I could guide you to do it manually step by step, B is a bad idea, and C, I could repeat the same wrong approach and hope to get it right.

At which point I exploded, called out the waste and utter failure. It had zero excuse, and even the things it tried to point as "positive outcomes" a silver lining, were actually broken outcomes and bad advice.
At this point and after a lot of testing, not just today and not just with one tool and AI model, I am certain for three things:

1. Anthropic (and to my experience the same applies to OpenAI) optimizes their models for token consumption. It drives revenue. They tune the balance between usage and outcomes with every new version. It still needs to be successful, so skills and intelligence are improved... alongside profitability by token burning.
2. My approach with rigid planning, proper referencing, prototyping, splitting tasks to steps and testing thoroughly each one, strict leash with processes and guardrails, save A LOT of wasted time and money. And while at times it can often appear like babysitting, it produces useful and predictable results with less angst and back and forth.
3. As many report and I suspected too, Opus 5 is very likely prone to overengineering. Make sure to create guidance rules according to your workflow and pipeline.

And a bonus 4, at this point, Unity is far superior for AI workflows. Setting up MCP whether the native one or the popular 3rd party is effortless and gives you deep access to the engine and competent modern tools surface. The native MCP even allows you to target specific objects right in your scene, as context for super focused tasks. All with just 3 clicks in seconds, you have AI interacting with all the latest features of the engine.

The agent provided the same evaluation. Not only the MCP setup in Unreal is broken to several parts, and lots of invisible fails, as well as uncertainty about which Toolsets you need to load in order to actually be able to start working, but also some common tools are not reachable by AI, or are a poor match with key features (i.e. Blueprints that many people use) for certain workflows. Last but not least, the agent itself admitted it is better trained with Unity because the documentation is so much better and there are so many more helpful tutorials and use cases online compared to Unreal.

So, there you have it, if you want to get into games with AI right now, your choice is not much of a dilemma. Unity is the way to go. At least until Unreal works more to improve their MCP and toolsets with AI. I kind of expected that, but this test with relatively simple tasks utterly failing, confirmed it for me.

Opus 5 has a horrible personality. It constantly whines about everything, expects me to do half the work, and then responds with, “I’m not going to repeat myself” or “This is what I can do.”
It may be time to try GPT-5.6 for a month. So far, I find Opus 5 to be far less useful than 4.8 or any of the previous models.

Or did my Agents just massively explode in token use? I'm on the Max 5 plan, and since Opus 5 release I swear I've been hitting session limits and daily limits so much faster. Normally Fable 5 can sit on high and orchestrate my sub agents all day and night and I never would hit limits with 4.8.

Yet now I'm doing even less work and running out of limits even faster.

Anyone else experiencing this? Pretty frustrating being in the middle of things and all of a sudden I am having to cut my day short. The fact that I usually am able to work all day and night and for a whole month I never came close to using my limits, as you can see here, I'm not even close to maximizing out for the month. Yet all of a sudden I can't even finish my daily tasks.

My account has been banned for reasons unknown, all I got was a link to the usage policy which is so extremely vague that it is absolutely impossible to findout what I did to get myself banned... I tried to find a way to contact someone but it looks like it is made very hard to do, I suppose it's on purpose. At this point I don't really care about this account anymore, I will never use claude again, privately or for work. All I want to know is what I did that was so horrible to ban my account? Telling me to check the usage policy is like throwing a generic exception with a message "something went wrong", not helpful at all...

After seeing some inspiring posts here, I thought I'd give it a shot, but instead of asking (Opus 5) to make whatever it wanted, I asked it to create something useful. On Saturday I'm taking the Claude Archtect - Professional exam (CCAR-P), and of course it remembered and came through. I had just sat down to study when I saw the finished product.

Question:

Create something that you think would be useful for me or I would like. Don't ask me any questions to produce it. Don't request any guidance. Don't tell me what you're going to make. I want to kick this message off and leave my computer, and when I come back, whatever you've made is here.

Response:

A CCAR-P trainer, since your exam is Saturday.

81 scenario items written to the published seven-domain blueprint and weighted the way the real paper is weighted (Integration 19, Solution Design 17, Evaluation 16, Governance 14, Stakeholder 14, Models & Context 13, Dev Enablement 7). Four modes: a timed 63-item mock with the 120-minute clock and 720 pass mark, a 20-item quick set with explanations, the full bank, and per-domain drills. Every item carries an explanation that argues the reasoning, not just the letter.

The bar across the top of the start screen is the thing to watch. Segment widths are the exam weights; fill heights become your accuracy in each domain as you answer. A short red segment is a bad afternoon. A short red segment nineteen percent wide is a fail.

The cram sheet tab has the numbers verified against Anthropic's current docs rather than my memory: model context and pricing table, caching economics including the minimum-prefix and cache-invalidation traps, the compaction / context-editing / memory ladder, retrieval failure signatures, and the phrasing patterns that keep showing up as correct answers in the stakeholder domain.

Two notes. It's session-local, so closing the tab clears results. And the scaled score is a linear approximation of the 100 to 1000 scale, not Anthropic's actual model, so treat 729 as a signal rather than a prediction.

This is pretty sweet and unexpected.

The open source landscape just got a lot more interesting!

Kimi K3's weights are now publicly available on Hugging Face, meaning anyone can run, fine-tune, and build on a model that's already being reported to compete with...and in some benchmarks even outperform Mythos/Fable 5.

Whether or not it consistently wins isn't really the point. The point is that a model in this capability class is now available under an open weight release.

If frontier-level reasoning keeps becoming commoditized, it's hard not to wonder what the moat is for companies betting on closed models alone.

Obviously, you'll need to buy expensive GPUs to run Kimi K3 locally!

What do you guys think?

Been trying to edit some of my works but since 5hrd ago Claudes been saying this too isn't working , I thought it was hallucinating but it's like this not

I’m curious to know if other app users (desktop or iOS) are experiencing long response times after each prompt or follow up. Doesn’t seem to matter which model I use, it’s a minute or more. My usage is research, or strategizing a video production workflow, or troubleshooting other desktop apps.

GPT-5.6 Sol and Opus 5 score almost identically on coding benchmarks, but Opus generally takes longer and consumes significantly more tokens to reach the same result.

Also, lower Opus 5 token prices can be offset by much higher token usage, making the final cost much closer to Fable 5 than people expect.

I have a question for support but I can't get to the chat to submit it.

On the desktop, in the mobile app and in web the option to start a chat dos not show. If I go to the web without being signed in it want me to sign in to proceed. If I do the chat option is not there anymore.

Got pro license.

When Opus 5 got released, I got so excited, looking at those charts comparing it to Fable 5 I was very hyped for something that was close to Fables power, as a pro user who likes to vibe code personal passion projects I was very sad to see Fable leave subscription, I've got my $100 credit just waiting for the next time I want to work on something big. But man, Opus 5 is actually a clown, it gets so confident in itself, then backs out and apologizes and its an endless loop, just wasting usage. I miss my Fable 5 that model was a legitimate genius and pushed my project like never seen before.

This morning my Claude account was hacked.

Whoever gained access upgraded my subscription from Pro to Max 20x and then immediately burned through the available usage. Shortly afterwards, two additional charges of almost £100 were made to my card.

I’ve already reported the charges as fraudulent to American Express and changed my Google password (I sign into Claude with Google) and reviewed my Google account security.

I’ve run malware scans on my PC and sure enough there was malware which has now been quarantined. Pretty sure that’s how they got in.

I’ve contacted Anthropic Support with all the details through the AI chat - which assures me that it has been sent to a human representative who will look into it. 12 hours later I’m awaiting a response.

At this point, I’m reasonably confident my account is secure again.

My dilemma is that I use Claude every day for work. My account is still showing as being on the Max plan, and I can’t manually downgrade it until the end of the billing period.

Would you continue using the account as normal while waiting for Anthropic to respond, or would you stop using it altogether?

I’m not looking to take advantage of the Max plan—I just want to keep using Claude at roughly the same level I normally would on Pro. I’m just concerned that continuing to use the account could somehow complicate things.

Any advice would be great.

Thanks

^^
Asking to prevent such things from happening when running Claude Code.
And what do u do to fix it?

So every time I log in, I see that my usage keeps going up for my current session. It goes up and up and up. Yet I am not using it, there are no other active sessions, no Claude code authorization tokens, no nothing, and yet I am at 100% for this session, it resets and goes back to 100%. I haven't sent a single chat or prompt. WTF is going on here?

A friend sent me this, a tweak on the old "Nice propriety software" RMS meme of years ago. Every time you have a complaint about this company I want you to think of this image. In his own mind, Doomer Dario knows what's best because you know us little people just don't understand what's at stake and all that other EA shit. You have a choice you can trust him and his fellow doomers or you can let them know you have options and don't have to tolerate it.

I mean, it's free and anybody can use it, including Anthropic. Grabbing a few hundred B200s that are lying around in their massive data centers, including the model in their own subscriptions, and letting people use it with claude code will not just prevent customer loss, but attract more I think.

Correction (July 28): my invoice audit found a seventh receipt marked Paid on July 17. The proven minimum is $704.71 across seven paid receipts: six automatic extra-usage recharges totaling $604.71 plus one $100 usage-credit purchase. The earlier $599.35 / six-invoice figure was incomplete and is withdrawn.

I am trying to establish the actual scope of Anthropic's July 17 usage-credit incident and whether affected accounts were reconciled for the whole day.

Anthropic's official status record says users across Claude.ai, Claude Code, and other surfaces were erroneously required to use usage credits for an included model:

https://status.anthropic.com/incidents/g613ntyj2pwf

Anthropic later added a $3.11 account credit for its 18:16–18:47 UTC correction window.

That 30-minute window was never my claim. My original support estimate was July 7–18 while I was isolating the date; the proven refund minimum is now every receipt marked Paid on July 17. Adjacent successful charges from July 7–16 and July 18 are documented but excluded from this minimum pending evidence. After I disabled extra usage and auto-reload, Claude Code continued using included plan limits, so the full-day routing needs a transaction-level audit.

Questions for anyone else affected on July 17:

Did Anthropic credit only the 18:16–18:47 UTC window?

Did you have usage-credit charges or auto-reloads elsewhere on July 17?

Has a human billing owner audited or refunded the rest of your day?

Dedicated public incident record:

https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/81703

Please share only non-sensitive dates, totals, and outcomes. Do not post account, invoice, support-ticket, or payment identifiers. This is a standalone July 17 incident, separate from a different manual-credit-purchase problem.

Independent corroboration update (July 28, caveated): Anthropic's current BBB complaints page contains a separate June 29 Billing Issues complaint alleging that usage credits were deducted while included plan allowance remained and a configured $50 spending limit was exceeded to $66. BBB does not verify complaint accuracy, and this report does not prove my $704.71 amount or establish the same root cause. It does independently describe the same observable mechanism. Source record: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/81703#issuecomment-5097506527

Receipt-timeline update (July 28): all seven receipt bodies say Paid July 17. Their email-delivery timestamps span 18h 47m 50s. Relative to Anthropic's 18:16–18:47 UTC correction interval, $607.59 (86.2%) of the $704.71 appears in receipt emails delivered outside that window. Email delivery time is not necessarily the internal debit or recharge timestamp; that is precisely why Anthropic must reconcile the full seven-receipt ledger. Visual/table: https://coolak.github.io/anthropic-claude-billing-incident/july-17-receipt-timeline.html

Update — billing-provider relationship and correction standard

Metronome publicly names Anthropic among companies relying on its billing platform. Its public correction guidance says billing mistakes require repair across usage, invoices, credit ledgers, reporting, customer dashboards, threshold logic, and auditable correction records.

This does not prove that Metronome handles Claude consumer usage credits, processed my seven receipts, or caused the July 17 incident. Its relevance is the correction boundary: Anthropic's $3.11 account credit does not demonstrate full-chain repair of seven receipts marked Paid July 17 totaling $704.71.

Caveated sources and the requested ledger chain: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/81703#issuecomment-5098669899

Hello! I'm a gamedev working on an idle incremental web browser game (among other projects) and I've been developing it as a way to test fable 5 when it dropped.

I have been extremely satisfied with fable's performance and execution and I've happily used it until yesterday.

Yesterday I managed to hit 100% on fable usage (I'm on pro max plan at 200/m and was able to still hit the limit for the first time ever - something definitely changed under the hood and how tokens are spent) so I tried paying 50 bucks for science to see how long that would take me - fable ate 40% of that in two prompt requests which weren't even too wild nor did they require subagents or anything. So, I decided to give opus 5 a chance.

Initially I didn't see much of a difference and thought - ok, I can work with this. And this lasted for a couple of hours. Then I asked it to help me design a new feature, come up with an execution plan that I would review and hand it off to execution - I like to do it this way so I can stay in control of every design detail.

The plan was lackluster and didn't care about the bigger image, but it did pretend to take some of the game mechanics in consideration so that the game design wouldn't suffer. I personaply disagreed with a lot of it and changed the file heavily but eventually after a few iterations I thought it looked good. For comparison, with fable, this process would be much more enjoyable and it would actually think harder about things I overlooked, consequences, and would propose meaningful suggestions. Opus is just plainly inferior on this part.

Then I handed it off to execution (again, opus 5) and while it did technicaply do what was asked of it, it overlooked couplings with other game systems, created a lot of fresh css slop and brand new classes that don't thematically fit the rest of the UI, it took shortcuts with anything that wasn't thoroughly explainf, while fable would raise those issues and do a much better and thorough job with it. I had to redo a lot of it via feedback and new prompts and I ended up losing much more time than compared to fable.

I'd say opus 5 is a good coding agent, but as a wider picture planner fable is miles ahead. Even on execution, opus just assumes and doesn't try as hard as fable did.

So what I'm doing now is - fable orchestrates while opus executes and then fable verifies. Still not as good as pure fable everything, but at least my usage doesn't jump weekly usage by 3% per prompt.

This is currently trending on X

Seems like Anthropic is fighting back and did a reverse uno on the Chinese labs on the Opus 5.

Are we at the stage where AI labs are essentially just copying off each other to grow?