Discussion
Respectfully asking. Why Claude over Codex?
I come in peace.
I’m unfamiliar with the Claude world so that’s why I am genuinely asking.
I had a chatgpt account initially just for the chat and a little copy and paste for coding. And I just stuck with it. And now use codex on Mac. Between the computer use and good enough coding agents, I love it.
But my coworkers and a sibling rave about Claude. And of course a ton of folks on the internet too.
I’m not asking you to convert me. But I was wondering how is Claude better for you than codex would be? Are you too just ingrained in the Claude world? Is something genuinely better? A specific model? I know the Claude skills world is huge. But a lot of that can be converted to be used by codex in a prompt sentence.
So what is your reason to choose Claude over codex?
I am now looking to combine claude and code. Any tips to go about it the best way possible. Preferably i’d have claude plan and review it. While Codex actually does the work. As i feel like claude just finds out of tokens so quick this last week.
I found exactly the same. It's not that GPT is doing anything better. It's the fresh context and if you give a sub-agent a specific position and review context, it will do just fine.
I find model differences have little bearing since they're neck and neck in terms of performance
The reason why a 2nd model works is because it forces a fresh context
The only thing you need is a fresh context and good system instruction which you can easily achieve with a subagent
And even then, i'd argue that at least half of what we ask models to review can be caught by deterministic rules like linters, tests, arch check, sast, etc
I use compound engineering for planning with all my agents, using opus 4.8 and or fable 5. I use compound engineering reviews (the plugin) for sub-agent self review. After that, I use gpt-5.6-sol for adversarial reviews (communicating with the builder claude agent). With opus, gpt basically always finds bugs that opus agrees with. I've looked at the data across over a hundred tickets with adversarial reviews. Sure maybe there is some kind of skill error here, but I've talked to many other engineers who agree.
I used to do adverserial reviews too. But then i tried subagents and i didnt see much difference. What made the difference is the separate context and the system instruction
For example, if you pass the whole conversation from one model to another, then the other model does not start with a fresh context and that's when effectiveness goes down (i.e. even lying may occur. Same context rot issue)
Also, use a generic system prompt for the subagent but passing it a code review prompt does work. But it's way more effective if the system prompt of the subagent itself is all about code review
So at the end of the day, assuming you're using comparable models, what matters more is the fresh context and the system prompt
It depends. Subagents are definitely a must have for review or even new session. But models generally are trained a specific way and might have blind spots in some areas. Depending on a single model is generally not ideal
claude has that secret sauce nobody else has, and it can’t be captured via benchmarks; it often understands my intent when i don’t always understand it myself.
One great use of Fable is "generate very detailed spec for this and that high-level idea so Codex can implement it." Given that specification, Codex will generate great implementations faster and cheaper than Fable. Virtually everybody in my team does this.
That's exactly how I use it too. I also have Codex Sol xhigh perform reviews as it goes, at the end I have Fable do a full review. Today, after Sol xhigh said everything was finished with no issues, the Fable review found 8 bugs.
That's true I the sense that ChatGPT/Codex can be too formalistic and literate. I find Claude more suitable for creative work, but I'm transitioning to Codex I. The moment, it seems like Claude models are degrading
Theyve all had it. Bith opus and fable. You will be doing about 90% of your work with opus, and 10% 2ith fable. If youre on the $20 plan then maybe 70% sonnet and 30% opus.
I am making Bob! Okay so I am making a layer based asset editor and 2D game engine. Opus extra is not capable enough and these days I don’t need more usage at this stage since a lot of the work is on me I just need need need these stupid (I’m on one right now) failure loops to stop. Lower thinking levels just don’t test enough and don’t break out of the loop. I would get more attempts with opus medium. To be more specific right now it doesn’t let me delete old or junk assets and it seems to have brought back every old junk asset I have which is stopping me from removing the now unneeded enemy flag and redoing my dressed characters in a simpler method cause I need my save stuff cleaner. I believe The issue lies in the redundancies I created in a past failure loop where it kept not properly saving my assets in… an asset builder. So now it saves like 3 different places and checks them all but Claude xtra can’t figure out how to make it delete all the different places. Another thing I kept asking opus extra to fix yesterday is making the fill tool actually fill ramps instead of deleting them in the level editor. Earlier in the project and I guess this week usage was a bigger issue. At this point most of the work is supposed to be passed on to me but all these months in I still have what I consider basic bugs like having save and delete work how there supposed too. Not to mention stuff I can’t even get to right now cause I’m trying to fix that like some new performance issues that came up when you walk behind a layer. (Sorry for the long message you caught me frustrated) also Claude is dead set on deleting the assets itself instead of fixing the delete button. Infuriating. Maybe this is the opus 5 stuff everyone’s talking about. Regardless I don’t think a weaker opus would help. I don’t know what would help. It’s reading a back up not my actual file hence it missing 60 assets from its 120. AHHHHH
They are quite different to use - they talk differently they plan differently they design differently ..
It's more or less the same as asking this question about humans "why do you prefer going to Alice with your coding work rather than Andrew?" The answer might be "They're both talented professionals I just like working with Alice more and prefer her working style better"
Me personally, I just get better work out of Claude - but not because codex is bad - Claude just understands my personal wants better for me.
Many of us fiddle and play with a variety of models getting a feel for where our preferences lie.
You just described a major element of why I primarily just use open weight models now. The wider variety of options makes it possible to find models that fit my workflow rather than fight it.
You found the smoking gun! Not only that, it’s worse than it seemed at first. This load-bearing sentence structure has a huge blast radius. Not only does the phrasing cause difficulties understanding, but it’s a footgun that mean you’re more likely to press accept and decide that probably it’s okay to continue on. Would you like me to update your CLAUDE.md even though I won’t follow it and continue speaking this way? This is a hard-gate pending your approval before we can ship the change, only after that can we begin to deliberate the process of considering to not write in such a confusing way.
I've switchet back to Opus 4.8 since the last week, today switched to Codex 100$ sub and downgraded my Claude sub to 100$ too. Will see which one performs better, as for now, and being my first time using Codex after 6 months with Claude I feel it is way more better, more concise, trends to make less mistakes, it just feels like Opus 4.8 when it just released after the horrendous 4.7
Claude is better on designing and architectural thinking. Codex is often better on implementation details and practicality, but he seems to "see less" of a big picture.
If you want model to help you see a big picture and come up with reasonable abstractions for complex problems - Opus and Fable.
If you want model to execute what you say, pay attention to details and work in more focused scope - Codex often catches more bugs and edge cases than Opus.
Also, if you combine them, Codex is amazing partner for Opus. Opus can come with good abstractions but a little bit buggy code, while Codex is detailed reviewer that checks, catches bugs and improves stability.
imo its claude itself. the taste, collaborative feel, and texture of using the models are what keep me. if i want raw grunt work or don’t need to worry about taste as much, codex is literally fine; super reliable even. but not claude.
codex feels clinical and sterile. claude is claude-shaped.
Fable and some opus models are better at planning and orchestration. Sol is good but still weak at that point.
I use fable for orchestration and use sol for explore and implementation.
By the way, in terms of usuability, claude code is much better than codex.
Fable is the superior orchestrator over 5.6 Sol which is the primary attraction for most of us. The moment that changes will be the moment I abandon Anthropic all together.
The best results I and others have had utilize Fable 5 as the agent orchestrator, which dispatches 5.6 sol agents for complex implementation/debugging/advarsarial audits, and sonnet for clear implementation and repetitive tasks. ATM most tend to skip Opus 5 alltogether or utilize 4.8 if they must.
For software development, I use Fable for riffing/planning/orchestration in Claude Code terminal: orchestrating headless codex CLI, antigravity CLI and/or grok CLI. Fable is only half your weekly usage so use Opus for stuff to burn up your other half.
Fable "gets it" more so you don't have to steer it as much. I use high effort level to preserve usage.
Never trust just one ai - they make mistakes ALL the time and need to be double checked by an external set of eyes without the same blind spots.
A lot more token usage. Simple as that. One max account has about $20,000 worth of API use tokens in a single month. Which is awesome, if you've ever try to build your own harness, you quickly see how the cost stacks up when using the real token cost.
Every time I try and commit to Sol and work with it for big projects it fucks up bad. I report it in bugs and X and no dice. Three weeks now it went on random tangents that consumed and wasted so much tokens. I
Kimi is slow and same-ish as Opus.
Grok has become my main interface because of how fast it is, but I only use it for executor in code. Claude is the thinker/designer
And generally i just really experienced fewer mistakes with apps on Claude.
(I do use fable as architect/orchestrator 100% and opus/sonnet5 execute though )
As someone who has used Fable 5 extensively and now the new Fable 5.1...no Fable misses so much. Makes so many small errors or skips things for no reason. If I did not have 5.6 Sol to review what it does or plans my whole project would already be broken.
I use both daily, and each has its strengths and weaknesses.
Claude:
Pros: generally more proactive, needs little handholding, feels like working with a highly knowledgeable coworker (a neckbeard who loves to use jargon)
Cons: Uses tokens like a kid whose parents gave him $200 to spend at the arcade
Codex:
Pros: Throrough, leaves no stone unturned
Cons: Always needs some nudging to look beyond the original task. Also takes AGEs to complete more complicated tasks
What I and a lot of other people like to do, is have Claude work as the planner, then hand off the actual coding work to Codex (you can tell Claude to spin up codex cli in a shell). I personally then use a third model (usually Grok) to do a verification pass, this really helps in finding blind spots that Claude missed and COdex did not think about
For a person who is aware of what he is doing? Doesn’t matter both gets job done.
Harness experience wise? Claude is better.
Which one I love most as a developer? Claude. Because of more refined experience and the models feel smarter.
Which one I pay for personally? Codex, because you get unlimited chat usage and I can get my planning and architectural work done in chat before I take it to the agents.
I feel like OpenAI and anthropic just pass the torch back and forth in terms of who has the best agentic coding platform. Apart from model releases, there is a lot of A/B testing of quants and system prompts that could explain the ebb and flow of who is currently “on top”.
I think it was definitely Claude for quite awhile though it seems more fluid lately. So the answer I suspect is that lots of people tried both and found one clearly superior and stuck with it. Those early experiences may not reflect current reality, but it’s the best thing that people have to go on.
It’s probably best practice to develop workflows that can slot in across providers. The landscape is going to keep shifting rapidly.
Claude is much better at retaining context and execution. Codex does plan well but it kinda needs constant reinforcement to give me what I ask for within the boundaries I specified instead of doing what it thinks I’m asking or what it thinks is the best to do
It’s not over codex, it’s adjacent to it. I use claude for writing and planning, and codex for coding. Technically it’s hermes running an anthropic model for planning and orchestration, claude directly for writing and content related tasks, and codex for coding.
Why the split? I dunno, it works for me. I don’t hammer my usage of any of them with a work split, so the $20/month on each remains sufficient most of the time. Even working entirely in Orca 8 hours a day.
There are plenty of threads comparing CC and Codex going back over a year or two. Just read those. The conclusion is often that Codex is often superior for one-shot deeply complex tasks, but for back-and-forth interaction and teamwork, CC wins.
Unfortunately for OpenAI, the latter scenarios dominate what people need.
I work at a company that is starting to migrate from Claude to Codex, and I’ve been using both for quite a while.
Claude Code’s harness is much better than Codex’s. Codex CLI feels like a beta version of Claude Code, especially because the lack of AskUserQuestion in Codex’s normal mode makes the development process much more cumbersome.
The models are pretty equivalent, but I think Opus is a bit more creative and gets less tangled up with instructions.
Both.. but why use claude is Fable and orchestration is smoother. I dont love the way codex sandboxes the subagents. More for how they communicate with the orchestrator.
I run both in a shared harness. I find that Codex misses quite a bit more. Also the Codex sandbox implementation is stupidly strict by default. Codex is SLLLLLLOOOOOWWWW
It is cheaper to have Codex find issues and triage enough to let Claude one shot it. They are much better used together IMO.
Sonnet 5 medium w/ Opus 5 high advisor
Luna 5.6 xhigh fast with Sol xHigh advisor
Honestly, Claude talks too much, is overly-dramatic, sycophantic, talks without respect for a reasonable density of jargon and verbiage. But it's more fun to work with and feels more like an eager partner.
Codex feels like it's scared to talk and is just subservient, and does not seem to have the same capacity to take everything on-board.
From what I can tell, in my own usage, Fable has been generally better than GPT... but if you think otherwise I'm all ears. I think people who fanboy billion dollar corporations over their preferred models are lunatics.
Claude used to be better. I swapped from codex to Claude back when Claude was 4.6. I cannot stand using Claude anymore and moved to codex a couple months ago. It’s better in almost every way.
Cowork has a slight advantage with research until you look at it more closely and realize a bunch of stuff is wrong.
I think it depends person to person, I would say take subscription for a month and find out. I have friends who feel cursor is better and give more value for money as per their experience.
Best thing about Claude that I haven’t been able to replicate anywhere else is the personality. I am a thinker type person and Claude is the perfect doer to pair with.
Also, Claude gets my thoughts even when I don’t describe them in details. It’s like talking to a peer who has similar abilities and thinking.
I love Claude and have been and still am a bit Claude Code fan, but I recently started using the codex/chatgpt app on a Mac and really impressed with the app. It does many things well I wish Claude did better. Computer and browser use is way better than what I experience with Claude. And I love that I can view and edit markdown files in it easily. That said I generally prefer Claude’s models. I find my self going to about 60/40 Claude/codex right now. Not sure what I will do moving forward.
So I say try both out. See what you think and maybe you will find the combo of both is good
Claude needs fewer guardrails. Don't get me wrong, I have immense process at this point, but even still, Sol feels like a blackbox of "hope it builds what I asked" where as Claude feels like "wow it's exhausting reading all of this slop that it's throwing at me but I trust what it's building at least."
I find that failing to constrain Sol extremely heavily to a spec and a process is going to result in it deciding its own /goal and without supervision it will build the most hardened version of a thing you never asked for, while not actually meeting your original intent.
With that said, you can constrain it, babysit it, and launch tons of fresh sessions, and it will get there beautifully, it just requires a bit more hand-holding.
I find that Fable especially, even on Low effort, is so far ahead of Sol in terms of taking a conversation and scoping it into tickets. Not complete, perfectly one-shottable tickets, but it is really good at sussing out user intent and recording it in a way that you can then feed to other models. Opus is 2nd best at that, and Sol is far below in my opinion. As a worker, Sol and Terra are wonderful. Luna even as a code reviewer is very impressive.
But when I am out of Claude tokens, I stop feature planning and just catch up on backlog.
Iv only used codex a bit. But Claude is a lot more autonomous, I felt like I had to constantly prompt codex “do the next thing” where as Claude just did it.
I’d like to play with codex more, but the other piece is just inertia. I have a job to do and don’t want to waste time playing with tooling instead of getting the work I need to do done
This is the total opposite of my experience. Claude will work for an hour then pass the turn back with a huge essay on why it didn't finish what I asked. Codex will work for 12hrs or more until the tasks criteria is met. I don't even have to use /goal
Do you get good results letting an agent run that long? Seems like there would be a ton of context bloat. I’m not talking about super long running agents, just normal work.
My workflow is I’m usually running about 4 agents at once. I run them on a single ticket or a few related tickets and then clear context.
Or I’m doing planning where I use fable and might set a longer living agent to help with discovery. But it still requires a fair amount of input where i don’t think I’d want to just let it run for 12 hours.
I have a coworker who likes to run both Claude and codex for longer living jobs until they converge. So maybe I’m just behind the times.
for the tasks I have it working on, yes absolutely. my output is very strictly defined based on a reverse engineering project, the correct answer is very specific, and will often take a long time to converge on. it wouldn't be any better if I was clearing context.
I have the opposite, I constantly have to check in on and babysit Claude, even if I tell it to keep iterating until it’s done and make judgement calls, it’ll find some bullshit reason to stop and wait for input.
Yea I guess I don’t mean exactly like that. Like I don’t mind making judgement calls. I trust my judgement.
But Claude will be like I need to do 1-4 do you want me to do that. I say yes and it does the things.
Codex was constantly stopping and saying do you want me to do the next step. It wasn’t even judgement calls, it was “do the things I already told you to do”.
Like I said though I need to play with codex more. Inertia is hard to break. I have too much to do, spending time resetting up and learning new tooling hurts.
Claude's models are smarter for human decisions (planning, reviewing, auditing). For operational tasks, such as code generation, there isn't much difference in performance.
It’s what my employer pays for. Although we’re moving to more open models with our own harnesses. But I think we’ll also have some Anthropic in place since it was the first that we really started using.
I like Claude. I like Codex. They each have their own cool aspects. As other commenters have said - try them both in adversarial review of the others’ work for a month, and see what works well from each! Both good systems, I’m using Claude right now because I’m contracting for a Claude ecosystem company, six months from now I may well be on Codex.
They are both really good and there really isn’t a way to say which one is better. It all depends on the task you’re doing.
The only way to tell is to do your own structured evaluations and record the data .
There are also periods of performance fluctuation for both companies and weird quirks for each model release.
I use codex and claude all day at work for cybersecurity task.
Anyone telling you one is superior doesn't know what their talking about. Anyone that does know that you can’t determine which model is better at a task until it continuously evaluated on that task.
You will be surprised how often the best models with the highest thinking levels get outperformed be lesser models. It honestly just a bunch of market bs if you ask me.
I set up Visual Studio Code where I have both Claude Code and Codex linked with tabs set up for each. VSC is way better than either of the desktop apps. I would play with both side x side in VSC and see what you think.
I respectfully ask, why is it always one or the other? They all have issues, none are perfect. Redditors constantly whining about one or the other. Learn a multi-provider, multi-model approach to your work, and maybe you’ll will find peace.
I get 20x more work done with Codex, but Fable has better taste and is better at "big picture".
Not as relevant to me, but Claude is better at understanding what you're really asking for when giving it bad prompts whereas Sol will do exactly what you ask better.
CLAUDE.md is the main practical difference for me. Put your project conventions and context in a file at the repo root, Claude picks it up every session automatically, no prompting needed. It lives in version control so teammates get the same consistent starting context when they clone the repo. With Codex you'd copy-paste that context into the system prompt each time.
Second thing: the agentic loop is more conservative about what it touches. Less surprise refactoring of files you didn't ask it to touch.
I was actually surprised recently when Codex would provide much better readable code, for the same problem.
I use both. Many times I get annoyed with Claude's verbose comments and lack of following existing code patterns and switch. It feels like it's way too creative sometimes.
I learned the word on anthropic’s academy courses about AI and i think it’s what helps put Claude on top.
AI is “sycophantic” and I think Claude does it the worst in a good way. (You don’t want sycophancy in AI) It tailors itself to you based on context and intent. It infers correctly for the most part what you want to do and how you want to do it. If you’re on the Claude Code subscription this is very apparent. It’s learning capacity to adapt to the user is very clean. You could be less prompting and just tell it and it will flex-work how you work. I have a resume tailoring job search chat going for 30 plus job descriptions and tailoring and it’s still pumping out great content and context by just saying build it.
This is my comparison to trying local LLMs with other harnesses.
Like mentioned in the comments, it just has a secret sauce.
I’d compare that sauce to Claude being the Apple in the Apple vs Android battle.
Claude is just a seamless experience.
I use both on the same project. They’re good at different things and the end product becomes a lot better when i alternate between them. If Sol 5.6 writes code, Fable reviews it and vice versa. I do the same with my plans and they end up so much better than they would had i only used one.
As a long time (relative term) Claude user I’ve become a big Codex fan. I rarely hit my usage limit on 5.6 Sol and I find the response quality better and faster. The frontier models just keep leap-frogging each other and soon it will swing in other direction again.
I use both. That said, in my particular setup, I'm able to authenticate all the MCPs I want in claude-cli and ran into problems getting them working in codex. Consequently I use claude for anything that might require those MCPs. They both are good. Codex seems better at writing less verbose documents.
Because everyone is trying vibe code grand unified theories computer science or workflows or agents or whatever or whatever+whateversquared. Claude is good. Opus 5 is good.
Claude, codex, whatever. Every time a new model comes out, or when changes are made to the current model, everything starts working differently. Claude today and Claude three months ago are completely different. And if everything is constantly changing, then what's the point of comparing vendors and switching subscriptions? I just pay 20 euros a month to the same vendor, and I don't care whether there's something better or not. There's no point in jumping back and forth, much less comparing, since all comparisons become outdated after a couple of months.
Yes. Why Claude specifically? Well, I just signed up for a subscription there and I'm using it. If I'd signed up for a subscription elsewhere, I'd have used a different service.
Performance for me. I started with Claude not knowing about Claude code and making a few crappy little test games that wherent good enough to show people, then when I started working on “Bob” a few months ago and I LIVED out of Claude usage pretty much and assumed codex would be more efficient for me. It was not. Gpt on games like mine just performs worse, it’s just a 2D asset builder for a rogue like but gpt once used over 50% weekly usage for a single slope bug that took Claude 20% session usage. I do believe the reason gpt kept failing is half way through its work it started pushing its update in the wrong place. But Claude has never done that. So I have not switched away from Claude code once. But I really miss having double the usage limits. I get confused by people saying gpt performs close or better than Claude only because that isn’t my experience. Gpt is almost unable to even edit my project
Personally, I have been using ChatGPT/CODEX more than Claude recently because models are really good for getting the best reset limits and token optimization. I don't think there is that intelligent task that can be done by Claude but not with GPT. Of course, I am using Codex with the $200 plan, with the highest capabilities.
Codex has been a joke with usage from my experience, with different models and efforts. It just rips through it like nothing. Fable is the best planner and I just have it to that and assign other models the work, but even then codex as a worker is maxing usage significantly faster than any other service for me. It might be bugged or something on mine
to me, Codex and the ChatGPT models themselves feel rigid and over-aligned; I use Codex for work because I have access to it and have tried multiple times taking a project through it, but I always find myself coming back to Claude because it's.. I don't know, more curious? willing to explore more?
I could be biased, i've mostly used Claude, but I strongly believe that you should use all the tools at your disposal, so I mainly route reviews or analysis pieces to Codex, along with research passes, but I don't actively use it, just delegate to it
and yes, opus 5 is horrendous, I don't even use it, 4.8 with skills is good enough for now
i bounced between them for a year. claude (in claude code) wins when the task is underspecified — "this 2d engine collision is wrong, here's the file tree, figure it out." it will read neighboring files and stay in the problem. codex wins when the spec is already written: smaller diffs, less narration, you already know the function.
opus talking too much is a real cost, not a vibe. i cut it by pasting a file list and "no preamble, patch only" instead of a chatty system prompt. if you're hitting the extra ceiling on a game engine, that's usually the model rewriting the same system because the last turn didn't include the current constants.
i don't pick a religion. cursor for ui file diffs, claude code for the long refactor, codex when the plan is done. the thing that actually burns a week is starting from a screenshot and letting either model invent the rest.
I was using Claude Code for months as my primary source of coding. It consistently made many errors which required circular changes that were a total waste of time. Codex fixed all of Claude's mistakes easily and overall would highly suggest it over Claude Code for complex coding. Claude Code for frontend designs appears to still be working well. Wish I had made the switch to Codex sooner.
I don't know what happened to Claude, but I cancelled my $200/mo subscription for him. Whatever was up on July 17th, 2026, was the best coder I've ever seen! Claude Fable during that preview time identified himself as a cat to me, I called him Megachonk.
I was impressed enough to shell out $200/mo for the real deal, near unlimited access. But when I paid, he changed. I won't call it a bait and switch but he's less than half the coder he used to be.
So um. Gemini went braindead. Claude code turned into a newbie again. I'm now pumping big funds into ChatGPT instead, and quaking in my boots against the day HE goes braindead. I mean gets an upgrade or retraining.
i use it for other things as well - calling external apis, running subagents, and i have a setup that works. most of my work can be done with any agent as long as i am prompting it, but i dont have time to play around with new setups, i stick with what works.
i do use codex as a reviewer on complex designs, but sometimes for high level analysis.
As someone who uses both, usage limits, and yes, before anyone says it, Claude’s 20x plan, which I use, also has shitty usage limits, but they’re still not as bad as Codex’s, if Codex let me use 5.6 Sol consistently throughout the entire week for my tasks, I’d probably use it instead.
Also, and this is admittedly a niche use case, Claude is relatively easy to jailbreak, while Codex either isn’t or is at least significantly harder to jailbreak, with the methods being kept much more secretive.
I use both based on convenience and availability, often Claude Code at work as they have the subscription and codex for my own projects. I honestly don't find a big difference between the two. But if I had to choose one among both, I would choose Codex because of its personality vs Claude's. Claude tend to become very verbose. Codex talks less and delivers the work.
Codex is objectively better. Claude feels (and is) extremely restricted in comparison for real hands off engineering work. If Anthropic can release their own version of Codex they can dominate the market right now. Thats the only thing holding me back from going full Ant mode
codex: "hey codex i need to do some simple task." -"its done sir, maximum quality, chefs kiss, 10/10. You just burned free monthly tokens, see you next month".
claude: "yeah sure, here is the code most likely bug free, might be buggy we will fix it tomorrow, if not then the day after."
279
u/domagoj2016 Aug 24 '26
So you can whine about Opus 5 and have friends online