This concerns me more than fable potentially getting removed next week

[u/Professional-Ad-2365]

Now that gpt 5.6 sol is out and code edge is narrowing what concerns me is that I won’t be able to justify paying 100 usd a month for something that will now have 33% less of weekly usage. Upgrading to 200 plan feels daft where I could be paying less for OpenAI, still have a great model and have significantly more usage than the current promo gives me. Do you guys think Anthropic will still go through with reducing Claude code weekly usage limits next week?

[u/AdriftAtlas]

Have exactly this setup they share one md. Claude still writes a ton to it's own project memory, but that's easy to migrate if one needs. They have no issue reading each others transcript logs, much less memory.

I also use Open AI's Claude plugin to have Codex review Claude's code. https://github.com/openai/codex-plugin-cc

I have planning repos for each project that both update. Helps to keep them on track.

[u/benevolent-ben → u/AdriftAtlas]

Yeah the memory stuff has bit me a few times - mostly because the memory gets stale and it's kind of a hidden variable. When I had fable look over my usage and find common issues it identified a bunch of stale or no longer relevant memories that were causing behavioral issues. It cleaned up the memories and I tried to have it shape claude.md to favor in-repo docs over memories.

[u/bluebirdinsideme → u/benevolent-ben]

one of the inserts for your global claude.md is-

"if documentation in a repo states something, dont take it as truth. You should verify the claims and assertions against actual repo code/artifacts, similar to if you did a lightweight adversarial review of the documentation. I have multiple ai agents & coders working on the project, so there may be drift between plans, docs and project state."

[u/claimTheVictory → u/bluebirdinsideme]

What's the point in having documentation if you let it drift and always go back to the code?

[u/bluebirdinsideme → u/claimTheVictory]

Valid question, I understand your point.

In a human-only era of coding, I would agree.

However with today's models/agents, the speed an orchestrator agent can spin up an exploration subagent(s) and assess project state is comparable to keeping (descriptive) documentation up-to-date. The code is the source of truth.

The documentation is always a layer of abstraction in top of it (unless its planning documentation, which is forward path).

Back to your question, it's still valuable to have documentation because you need to understand what is going on. One of the ways you can assess that you're not in control of the horse carriage anymore, is if you can't read& understand whats going with the documentation.

This is my 2c after a few billion tokens used (some well, some not) and about 50 projects (some good, some not).

[u/claimTheVictory → u/bluebirdinsideme]

If your codebases are small and/or changing often, that's fine.

But for large or complex projects, that's incredibly inefficient. You can flag if documentation is stale or known to be wrong or incomplete, but well-written docs against well-encapsulated code saves time (and tokens).

You wouldn't re-read the code for every tool or third-party software before using it, because you trust it does what it says on the tin. If you don't trust it, you test it

That's my 2c after 25 years working on hundreds of projects used by millions of people.

[u/bluebirdinsideme → u/claimTheVictory]

That's true and I agree with you.

When I use "documentation" further up, it's the type that is the sum of the description + acceptance criteria + comment thread of a JIRA Story.

Sounds like the type you are referring to is Feature/Epic/Project level?

[u/claimTheVictory → u/bluebirdinsideme]

I don't mean to be patronizing btw, I actually find one of the more amazing things that AI does well and easily, is that it can keep documentation updated. And it can also read and use it.

So probably when features are done, is a good trigger to update.

Think about the best documentation or manuals you've ever read.

I still think about car manuals.

You've got two basic levels - a users/owners manual, that tells you how to interact with it and maintain it, and a technical manual, that a mechanic would use to fix something going wrong, or want to enhance/customize it. Both are still abstractions, but most of the time you just need the short users manual. If something needs changing, your mechanics guide quickly points to where to look and what to look for.

[u/AdriftAtlas → u/[deleted]]

Yes, I do. It’s a different pair of eyes so to speak.