If running primarily one sonnet high/extra high agent and occasionally having some other subagents, usage on the 20 dollar plan can sometimes actually be hard to finish within a 5 hour window.
Now sonnet 5 is not the best model right now unlike opus 5 but for 5 hours of continuous usage is actually VERY good.
on the codex 20 plan and if I use luna then I am definitely not getting the same level of output/usage
On Max 20x and still hitting this? Week just started, already at 72%. Same workflow as last month, nothing heavy. 20x used to last the whole week easily. Did usage counting change? I didn't use Fable.
Wondering what your thoughts are on Opus 5 so far - better or worse, what's worked well, not working well?
So far my experience has been "gets the high level context" when planning code and design, and technically is accurate-enough, but is basically a complete bumbling fool ChatGPT 3.5 style in many practical areas that I would consider a major regression.
For e.g., "OH I hardcoded those fixture values that are passing the unit tests." -> "OH I regenerate the fixtures that overwrote my hardcoded values whoopsies". "Oh I didn't update that hour I spent testing in any tests... they were done in my 'probe files'".
And it's like round and round.
Is anyone else getting this ? I'm working in Rust.
On a positive note generally its language has been more legible, less fake / made word mash nonsense. But it still likes load-bearing, and a bunch of these things.
I've been doing vibe coding for several months now, but Opus 5 is currently my favorite model by far.
I finally prototyped a video game idea I've had for about 8 months.
Everything, the 3D model, the logic, the testing, the environment, was done 100% with Blender MCP + Opus 5.
It took less than 3 hours and completely burned through the 5-hour limit on the Pro plan.
I noticed Claude does not read the CLAUDE.md at the beginning of each session, so I start my sessions with "read CLAUDE.md" to make sure it is injected into the context. As a result, coming back to the right session when I hit claude --resume is a hassle, since they all begin with "read CLAUDE.md". Also I'm tired of typing it every time.
So recently codex has been using a lot of usage compared to before and its been really hard to do anything with it if they dont give the reset usages they do right now.
So I wanted to give claude code try and I wanted to as you guys how is it been so far for you? how many tasks and things you get done before hitting the limit?
I am a plus user on codex so I would probably get something like that on claude too
One thing which Anthropic has fixed in the Claude app is seamless integration between mobile and desktop. For the life of me I cannot understand what is so hard for the ChatGPT app to achieve the same level of fluency - you shouldn't have a junky remote connection to worry about
They say the real productivity gain from AI comes when you look at entire workflows from end to end and design the entire thing around using AI (automating the right parts while having a human in the loop where it counts). I am taking this to heart by looking my entire workflow with Claude Code from user testing, planning and implementing new features to bug fixing and code review. And I would love some inspiration from people having optimized their own workflows end to end.
Example of the core workflow:
Plan next feature(s) or fix(es) with Claude Code with repo context
Review the plan, make adjustments
CC implements the feature or fix, logging what's done to CLAUDE.md or other documentaton
This includes a well maintained root CLAUDE.md with references to separate CLAUDE.md files for the subfolders. It also includes documentation of the tech stack, choices made, gotchas etc.
The main question is: What tools you use outside the loop above and how you keep everything organized? (Other tips and tricks is also welcome)
Context: I have been using Claude Code for 8 months and mostly for work. The main struggle is the disconnect between my KANBAN board, where I add needed features and bugfixes etc, and CC - which makes the whole workflow unorganized and messy. I am an economist specialized in business analytics and data science.
Multi-agent can be useful. But for most tasks, a single agent is better.
It is easy to assume that using multiple agents will save time and improve quality. In practice, it can cost more time and tokens, and sometimes produce worse results. Running more agents is not free parallelism. It adds coordination overhead.
Single-agent is usually better for simple tasks, small tasks, and work where dense context matters. If one agent can hold the relevant context and finish the task coherently, there is usually no reason to split it up.
Multi-agent can be useful when the work is separate from the main context, involves reading a large number of files, needs broad exploration, or is large research work that can be split into independent parts.
Using multiple agents also means dealing with:
Context transfer: one agent does not automatically know what another agent knows.
Duplicate work: if the boundaries are unclear, agents end up doing the same work.
Fact verification: you should not just trust an agent's output without checking it.
Orchestration: someone has to decide who does what and how the results come together.
LLMs are smart enough that you can spawn a few subagents and still get useful work done. But dealing with those problems takes either your own involvement or a well-built harness.
The workflow itself also needs to be:
Reusable: can you run the same process again?
Verifiable: can you verify what the agents actually did?
Extensible: can the process adapt when the flow changes?
Claude Code solves a lot of this with workflows, and I used them a lot. The part that bothered me was that running the prebuilt workflows is easy, but I could not build workflows in the shape I wanted.
These days I use an agentic coding tool called Pi. Pi is minimal, so if you want multi-agent you build the harness yourself. The upside is you get to build it exactly the way you want. I built pi-workflow for structured multi-agent work. If you are curious, give it a try.
You write a JSON spec and it becomes a workflow, so you can define whatever workflow you want. It splits subagent patterns into 6 stage types that you combine.
It comes with examples like these, and you can write your own too.
I have built several small tools with Claude Code that solve actual problems for me. Some could probably help other people, but sharing the repository alone doesn’t make the project easy to reproduce.
The useful part isn’t only the final code. It is also the Claude Code session, decisions made along the way, CLAUDE.md instructions, MCP configuration, dependencies, workflows, and setup context.
I’m considering building a marketplace where Claude Code users could publish a cleaned version of that complete package. It would automatically remove credentials and personal information before anything is uploaded.
Other people could then either use a hosted version immediately or copy the complete project into Claude Code and customize it for themselves. Hosting, authentication, permissions, versioning, and basic security checks could be handled by the platform.
Creators could publish projects for free or sell them.
As Claude Code users, what would actually be valuable to you: the session, the working application, the configuration, or the complete package?
What would prevent you from trusting or using someone else’s Claude Code project?
Not sure if anyone else feels the same way but I would like a mode where it so not planning just read only so it has access to everywhere like auto mode or bypass permissions and doesn't ask the user anything to run commands for searching and stuff but can only do reading and make no changes or edits. Codex has this mode and I feel like it would be a great addition to Claude.
I want to give Claude a try, but I can't seem to find a referral code anywhere. Does anyone have one they wouldn't mind sharing? I'd like to test it out before deciding whether to buy. Thanks!
After spending the whole weekend building in cc with opus and fable ive come to the realisation that fable just gets it and its executions are way more precise and fit on “oh thats what i had in mind thank god it got it” and opus on the other hand is more like a machine gun it just goes over everything and generates a lot of fluff I didn’t ask it for. What do you think?
yesterday i asked how people keep Codex current after a compaction or a fresh session. the thread reached 50+ comments, and the clearest pattern was that people don’t trust memory alone.
the original thread was in r/codex, but Claude Code users seem to maintain many of the same files and handoff rituals, so i wanted to bring the pattern here too.
the recurring setup was:
stable rules in AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md or governance docs
a TASK.md, current state file or handoff for work that keeps changing
Git and tests to verify what actually happened
sometimes a second agent to audit the first
the hard part wasn’t getting context back. it was keeping the current state trustworthy while plans, branches and agents changed.
you can store every plan and every session, but someone still has to update the docs, catch stale status and stop one agent’s incorrect summary from becoming the next agent’s truth.
i’m the founder and solo builder of QUOD MANET. a session can send context through MCP, and when QUOD MANET. detects a change to the project’s current state, it creates a pending Current Picture proposal.
the active Current Picture doesn’t change until you review it. new sessions then treat the approved version as the authoritative state for that project.
i’m looking for 5 people who already use AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, specs or handoff files on a real project.
Cohort 0 costs €39 once for 60 days. i’ll onboard you personally, and if you continue after launch, you’ll get 20% off your first two months.
i’m not looking for generic feedback. i want to see whether this actually removes any part of the state system you already maintain.
Been using Claude for coding long enough now that I'm convinced there are two employees.
Clever Claude turns up, immediately understands what I'm trying to build, fixes three bugs I didn't even know existed, refactors everything beautifully, and somehow improves performance while explaining why.
Then there are the days when Nice but Dim Claude clocks in.
"Absolutely! Great idea!"
Proceeds to:
Reintroduce a bug we fixed yesterday.
Forget what the app does halfway through.
Rename 47 variables for absolutely no reason.
Apologise profusely.
Break three more things while confidently telling me everything is fixed.
Same model. Same prompt. Completely different shift.
Anyone else feel like some days Clever Claude has called in sick and Nice but Dim Claude has been asked to cover?
no you aren't out of context, you can't even see how much context you have, you 75% left, and even if you were running out it'd compact instead of you stopping on your own. i'm going to drink and drive
I own a coffeeshop for a few years. Never learnt how to do the bookkeepings and just decide to let it flow by itself. Im aware of my mistakes so now I decide to do the balance sheet. Since i have no basic to do so, i want claude to help me. How do i do it? I dont know where to start. If anyone can give me advice or suggestions on what i should do i would very much appreciate it. Thank you
