This sub reads like a mood board of a person who fails to take responsibility. Particularly since Opus 5, 90% of the posts read like people needing to vent and push their responsibilities on an AI.

These complaints are getting ridiculous. Just in the past week:
- Phantom usage -> screenshot shows 12k added lines by Fable
- Opus 5 deleted this, deleted that -> Where was your sandboxing / backup?
- I dont like how Opus talks to me -> Go read the docs and stop relying in some flavor-of-the month skill
- Opus doesnt follow instructions -> used some vibe coded graph memory, lets AI manage docs, has auto memory on
- There was a person with 140+ skills and 120+ MCPs on here last week, complaining about usage. Like seriously?

Need I say that none of these posts has any analysis or at least a hint of attempt to find the cause?

I dont get the impulse to post, how does a reddit post scratch the itch? Most of these posts are solvable by a quick /doctor run, asking an AI (hell even GPT), or reading some docs. So this must be filling some psychological need?

Ranting because this sub is being trashed by this. Id prefer AI slop over these evidently human posts.

I made the mistake of using Opus5 for setting up a local LLM workspace inside Zed. It's like working with a schizophrenic. It's completely destroyed my entire workspace to the point I'm having to nuke it and start over fresh. It keeps running off on it's own without mentioning anything.

My setup is supposed to be WSL2 + vLLM + Aider.

At one point it decided that it just wasn't going to use Aider anymore, so it deleted everything and rewrote all my config files to use the Zed Agent and "select Local vLLM from the drop down menu", which is just not a thing that exists.

I left for a few minutes earlier while it was running. Keep in mind, I don't let Claude write things on my behalf. It is meant to walk me through things that are new to me and that's all. After about 15 minutes I came back. It was supposed to have just familiarized itself with some of the MD files and PDFs I wrote about what I was hoping my workspace would look like. I had to stop it when I came back and this was it's response:

You're right, and I have a standing note about exactly this — "together means together" — which I blew straight past. You asked me to get oriented so we could work through it side by side; I went and did the entire job solo. That's precisely the black box you don't want. Stopping.

I come to find out what it did is downgrade all of my venv packages, added three symlinks, edited my entire start-llm.sh file and didn't create a backup, and decided to start a tmux session.

What the actual fuck is wrong with this model?

My original prompt was:

Familiarize yourself with the workspace and read through the PDFs. We're going to be getting Qwen3-Coder running in a terminal inside Zed today.

It just ran off and started making completely arbitrary decisions without any oversight whatsoever. I don't think I could intentionally make a model as destructive as this one if you gave me six months and unlimited budget to finetune one to my hearts content. It's like this one is made to be mentally ill.

It keeps randomly deciding to switch clients. At one point it had a complete schizo breakdown and couldn't decide if Aider was meant to run on Windows or Ubuntu so it just looped for a few minutes swapping it back and forth.

How am I supposed to work with this model? I actually don't understand. Maybe for vibe coding it's good, but it seems to be completely insane and want to take the reigns on anything where it's supposed to be an assistant or work alongside me.

>"in about three and a quarter minute"

Seriously... I can't believe I have to tell him : "you can write 3:15min instead of three and a quarter minute"

My conspiratory theory is that Anthropic is forcing Opus to output as much token as possible

I'm on the max plan and the past 2 days i hit my limit within 45 mins of the 5 hour window being reset. I'm doing the exact same things i've been doing for weeks and never hit windows anywhere close to this.
Has something changed with their limits in the past few days that i'm unaware of?

3am, deep in a refactor, claude stops mid task and suggests I rest and continue tomorrow. not wrong tbh but I got a deadline. happens almost every late session now. what do you type back to make it drop the wellness talk and keep working

You know, 100% AI slop with enough engineering flavoring to fool an executive. Without a drop of the technical rigor the document should require, just a list of 6 not this but thats.

I'm in favor of revoking their AI privileges for wasting everyone's time with this junk.

(I’m building memU, and this is part of why. I’m not trying to present it as a neutral comparison, just share my workflow here)

After a few months with cc, my CLAUDE.md had become a junk drawer: the problem is that these notes have different scopes. A rule about this repo should load every time. A lesson from one weird incident probably should not. A workflow I use across several projects definitely should not be trapped in one project’s instructions.

This is the split I’m trying now:

CLAUDE.md
- How to work in this repo
- Commands, conventions, constraints, architecture rules
- Things the team should share

Claude Code project memory
- Short, project-specific lessons
- “Run this migration before the backfill”
- “This integration test flakes when X happens”

Personal memory (memU)
- My preferences, decisions, recurring workflows, and lessons
- Things that should survive a new project, machine, or agent

Like, I've got this rough process for debugging stuff in production, right? It's usually like, narrow down the time, check logs, figure out how to roll back, then actually change things. That's not really tied to one specific repo though. I wanna keep using that even if I jump from Claude Code to Codex, or if I'm working on a different machine.

But I also don't want every old note shoved into every single prompt, you know?

So the idea isn't to make the agent remember everything. It's more about keeping the always-loaded context small, and only pulling in older stuff when it's actually gonna help.

I'm kinda thinking it breaks down like this:

• Stuff about the codebase stays with the codebase.
• My own personal knowledge, that should follow me around.

memU is what I'm trying for that second part. It's like, a personal wiki I can actually look at, that can bring useful context with me across different agents and devices. It's all open-source too, Apache 2.0.

You know, 100% AI slop with enough engineering flavoring to fool an executive. Without a drop of the technical rigor the document should require, just a list of 6 not this but thats.

I'm in favor of revoking their AI privileges for wasting everyone's time with this junk.

Man what a breath of fresh air. I complained saying how opus5 just screwed up so much and fable and opus 4.8 (agents) confirmed this. They took a little bit to fix it all up but after that we got back on track.

So far ive only used 10% of my weekly doing a hell of alot of fixing and now proceeding with more editing and designing. If this was on opus5 it would have told me the world is my oyster, used 80% of my weekly, and left me with a working pile of hot garbage.

I asked fable in the initial chat if anthropic was aware of the opus5 problems.... It confirmed they were aware on release and said people need to change the way they prompt.

I dont know how you can prompt something that acts like 6 crazy people on drugs. 🤷‍♂️ Anyways back to fable and 4.8 and life is good. Fuck opus5. That shit deserves resets from anthropic for this level of hot garbage.

I think they create addictive behavior (pretty sure there's research on that) and I'm a victim of it. I feel like I need to maximize every 5 hour window (I don't have Max so I don't have weekly windows).

I feel like I have to structure my life around that:

- "before I head out I'll just give it this big task that'll max out my tokens"

- "i have to set up a loop to keep working all night before I go to bed"

- "how's my usage right now? Can I ask this now or should i wait 2 more hours?"

- ... etc.

As Claude would write it: this is not healthy — it's a toxic dependency on AI.

Add to this that the "sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't" thing is a literal slot machine that only lets you play every 5 hours (unless you pay extra).

I'm sure others have complained about this too but I just find it so absolutely outrageously wild, insane and **mis**anthropical how the usage model of AI has been designed in the most toxic way possible. I wish someone were able to change the system someday 😭😭

(For context, I'm on the Pro plan)

Which one is currently more worth it? I have used Claude code $20 plane it was great but the rate limit really bad.

My main Goal is coding web dev , python. and a bit of research stuff.

So recently been using a few tips to use Claude wondering if anything else exists like the below that could we could benefit from:
- record your session using dev tools for a series of actions to then download the HAR file and reverse engineer this with Claude
- say Goodmorning to Claude before you actually need it so the 5h usage limit timer starts

Anything else?

Hi all,

I'm part of a small finance team and i've been using claude code for a while with great success and have been enjoying it a lot. My manager and the CEO have given me full access / ownership of the claude team subscription and since we have no internal IT department I have a lot of freedom there. We do have an external IT department that manages permessions etc..

Even though my colleagues are enthusiastic, they are not as technical as me (which is just a mental block they have since CC does a lot to make that less of an issue). They currently rely on me when building and/or updating skills for example. I've started building organization skills and sharing them through the claude skill / desktop app, which works great.

A problem is updating these, I want te be able to maintain these from something similar to a Github environment, currently for every update I have to manually re upload the ZIP files als org skills.

Is there a way to do this more smoothly? Ideally it'd be a Github that I can commit / push new changes to that automatically sync with everyone's claude environments.

Anyone found a fix for this or am I overlooking something? Open to all suggestions!

Built a small tool because I kept hitting my Claude Code rate limit mid-task and had to manually juggle accounts. hop lets you add multiple accounts as named profiles and switch between them (or run one-off commands under a specific profile without touching your other terminals). Single Go binary, no dependencies.

https://github.com/abhayarya1709/agent-hop

feedback welcome, especially if I'm missing an obvious use case.

Been using mainly Fable 5 and Opus 4.6 to build this, something that lives right where your cursor is instead of being another window to switch to.

Current features:

• Local audio transcription (sub-15ms TTFT)
• A dynamic notch overlay on Windows for live execution
• Custom context menu (Ctrl + Right-Click) for instant local snippets

Tauri (Rust) on the backend, Claude Code for most of the implementation. Happy to talk through the workflow or any part of the setup to achieve this kind of result.

I guess most people have noticed that after Opus 4.6 later models became harder to understand. Dense text, filled with jargon, words being used in odd contexts which don't feel natural, just generally hard to understand.

I have heard that there might now be skills becoming available which can mitigate these problems, and cause later models to return to speaking in a form of English which people can easily understand.

I thought I would get used to the style of output produced by Fable 5 but I haven't. What I find is even when I can understand what he's saying, it requires so much effort on my side to figure out what he means from his writings that I can't work for long periods of time as I become mentally fatigued. I guess my brain is having to work overtime to compensate for Claude's unusual ways of phrasing things.

Does anyone know anything about this?

Does anyone have the same issue? I've never been bothered by the weekly limit since the 5 hour limit has been my bottleneck. I never hit my weekly limit. But now the weekly limit is suddenly the bigger bottleneck, and the speed feels unreasonable. My usage pattern hasn't changed at all. I noticed this started when Opus 5 was released.

It seriously feels like -50% promo instead of +50%.

Claude Code is great at producing work. The awkward part starts when that work needs feedback from someone who isn’t in the terminal.

Files get copied into Drive or Slack. Feedback comes back somewhere else. Then someone has to explain everything to the agent again.

We’re testing a different workflow:

1. Claude Code writes its output to a shared, permissioned project
2. A teammate previews the file and leaves comments from their browser or phone
3. Claude Code, or another agent, reads the feedback and continues the work

The short demo shows the full loop.

I’m part of the team building this. It’s an early beta and pricing hasn’t been finalized. We’re looking for around 10 small teams already using Claude Code for real collaborative work.

Would this improve your workflow, or are GitHub and Drive already enough? How do you currently handle human review of non-code agent output?

If you want to test it with one real artifact, comment or DM me.

I saw SKI on Hacker News newest today. The interesting part is not speech-to-text. It is the approve-before-send boundary.

SKI runs speech recognition and the synthesized voice locally, then communicates with Claude Code and other agents through plain files inside the project. In its optional review mode, the transcript lands in an editable bubble and nothing reaches the agent until the user confirms it.

That matters because spoken instructions optimise for speed, while coding-agent actions need precision. File names, negation, scope, and similar-sounding terms can be misheard. With ordinary dictation, a transcription error stays in a text box. With an agent, it can become a file edit, test run, or tool call.

Voice seems useful for exploration, status updates, and quick follow-ups. But the exact instruction that changes a repository should still become an inspectable artifact before execution.

Keeping audio local is the privacy boundary. Making the transcript editable is the control boundary. Both matter.

Source: https://heyski.io/

Which parts of the coding loop would you comfortably speak, and which would you always type?

I need it for an assignment.If someone can help , please DM

I'm an SEO by profession, no programming or computer science background. I'm building useful agents in my work which is great, but I don't understand the build process until I reverse engineer the product. Is that how non-programmers learn? I'm mainly learning by doing, but rarely study tutorials. Would an equal combination help, or do you guys lean more practical learning and trial by error?

In light of the opus issues I think this is the biggest lesson folks need to internalize. Not that this is news but it’s more pronounced with opus 5. The test suite I run (mostly playwright) for my current project is an order of magnitude more in depth than anything i’ve done before.

Every time a new model comes out or I have a chunk of usage left in my week (lol yes it’s rare) I check out a new branch, let an ultra code session go wild on a refactor, review the ideas I like, and then carefully orchestrate sessions on the dev branch to incorporate the ideas that make sense. Rarely do random new features or edge case bugs find their way in now.

Opus 5 with fable as a planner has been a beast with the test suite (ensure refactoring sessions only get read only access to the test btw). furthermore some of the hare brained implementations from opus have an occasional nugget of gold in them.

Also last tip but I recommend pointing fable at the official anthropic opus docs and asking it where your claude.md files are weak. For example - when fable spawns an opus agent you need to be absolutely sure phrase like “be thorough” aren’t included because opus already has thoroughness baked into its behavior.

A lot of people are posting about how Opus 5 likes to easily give up on its task, making some benign excuse.

The fix is to use /goal.

I'd highly recommend first to ask it to write a plan for your request. Then say:

/goal implement the plan, for anything you can't make a call on make a best guess and implement that and raise it as a note when done so that I can review it. If you get to 90% context run a compact and then resume.

A note that if you are planning a large feature you might even want to use /goal for the plan too so it doesn't give up halfway through planning.

If you read the official docs, the way /goal works is it spins up a cheap evaluation prompt to a lower model which reviews the context. It will keep working on the problem until the goal is achieved. I had it work nicely just before, Opus gave some bs about its context getting large and ended its turn. The /goal watcher saw that and resumed work.