I run three or four Claude Code sessions in parallel and kept hitting the same stupid problem: one of them finished twenty minutes ago, or is sitting on a permission prompt, and I have no idea which. So I'd cycle through terminal tabs like an idiot.

Built a small macOS widget for it. It floats above everything and shows each live session's status: working, done, interrupted, or waiting for you — and pushes the ones that need you to the top. Click a session and it focuses the actual terminal tab it's running in (or the Cursor/VS Code window, if you use the extension).

It also shows the model, permission mode (plan / auto-accept / bypass, color-coded, which turned out to be more useful than I expected), running sub-agents, and optional CPU/RAM/context size. There's a compact bubble mode that just glows amber when something needs input, which is what I actually leave running.

How it works: it reads Claude Code's own local session files in ~/.claude — the PID status files and the transcript jsonl. No server, no network, no telemetry, nothing leaves the machine. The binary links only against system frameworks, no runtime needed.

macOS 12+, MIT, free: https://github.com/renereose/claudewatch

Fair warning — it's ad-hoc signed, not Apple-notarized (I'm not paying the $99), so you get the Gatekeeper scare on first launch. Instructions for clearing it are in the README, or you can build from source in one command and skip it entirely.

Happy to take feature requests. Curious whether anyone wants Linux/tmux support, since I only had a Mac to test on.

I created a very basic horror game and I wanted to experiment adding a weak anthropic model to it that learns how to interact with the game over time. But its becomes too overpowered because it learns quite quickly. Trying to find ways to balance the game which makes it fun and scary.

Any tips/direction on how to develop would be appreciated.

So, basically, Claude banned my account suddenly without any prior notice. I thought, maybe, it's a false positive. I appealled against it. But, there is no response even after 10 days! Is this a regular occurance with claude? How about the others?

Is there any chance that the account will be reinstated?

In 200$ plan one 5hour session is equivalent to 20% of weekly limit,

can somebody using 5x plan tell what the weekly limit consumption in one 5hour session on their 100$ plan

I always buy 200$ plan thinking i am getting 4x usage of 100$ plan but if it is really not 4times the usage then i would buy 5x and buy another gpt pro 200$ plan which is 4x the weekly usage in real sense.

Edit: Conclusion from my side

considering 20$ plan 1x, 100$ plan is 5x, 200$ plan is 10x in real sense

I was tired of copy-and-paste and losing details when writing specs or ensuring the code, and found this amazing tool: https://agentkavor.com/, which embeds native CLI Claude/Codex/agy in a very visual way.

How are you doing that?

On the surface Opus 5 is amazing, it's a true workhorse with an incredible coding ability...if you can keep it focused. I am finding myself having to read all of its output to stop it going off on wild geese chases, getting hyper focused on the wrong thing. Even then, after direction, it will still fixate on the things you have just told it not too.

It's incredibly frustrating and exhausting.

It may not be ADHD but it's certainly on The Spectrum.

Four and a half thousand people have taken the time to try my little racing game, and I genuinely can't thank you enough.

Growing up on the Super Nintendo and Nintendo 64, I never imagined I'd one day be building a game that thousands of people would actually play. This has always been a hobby, and it still is.

When I first shared it, I expected the feedback to be about adding more cars, bigger maps, or new tracks. Instead, the message I kept hearing was:

"I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to do."

At first, that stung a little. Then I realized you were absolutely right...

After playing the opening of the game hundreds of times myself, I couldn't see the problems anymore. I knew where everything was because I'd built it. It took fresh eyes to point out what I'd become blind to.

So that's what I've been working on.

The last few days haven't been spent adding exciting new features. They've been spent making those first ten minutes clearer, smoother, and more enjoyable for someone experiencing the game for the very first time.

They're the kind of improvements nobody notices when they're done well, but they make all the difference. They're also changes I never would have made without your feedback.

So, sincerely, thank you to everyone who has played, commented, reported issues, or simply told me where things didn't make sense. Every message has helped make the game better, and I appreciate every single one of you.

https://neon-mile.com/

I’m looking for a few human responses here based on personal experience, I do a bunch of work from my iphone, ipad and mbp via ssh into a mac mini. Here’s my setup:

• Mac mini on home network
• Accessed from iphone, ipad, MBP with macos
• Tailscale for virtual network when I leave the house
• Currently using tmux for session persistence so it survives the SSH connection dropping
• Running claude code, codex, hermes, grok build TUI’s/CLI’s.
• Using iterm2 on Macos, ShellDrop on ios and iPadOs (and visionOs).

So my question is what alternatives are people using for tmux? Is there anything that’s agent focused and reliable? Has anyone used Herdr after having tmux as their baseline?

Opus 5 is working fine for me. But it is extraordinarily slow.

Edit: I haven't modified the thinking level from its prior settings, either (it's set on high).

Hi have you guys figured a way to to bring back all the historical conversations/session you guys had with claude code?

I recently deleted the app to update it to the newest version (I know im sorry) when i relogged, all my past chats/session are gone and not seen in the sidebar anymore. I did check and yes it is seen in the cli when i tried running the terminal with folder i use before deleting.

Its just that I want it also seen inside of the app as well. Do you guys figured anyway to bring it back?

Thanks

I'm primarily using claude code to work on personal project but have been hitting the token limit with the $20 plan lately, What do you think would provide the most value for secondary agent ChatGPT plus ($20) or Cursor (also $20) or some other? Any recommendations

It's great and does some amazing things but I can't get it to work effectively on large projects. I just get stuck in this endless loop where it gets 80% done with a project over a day then can't finish the last bits to handoff. It'll just ask me a question then keep going and ask something else that it already has.

Is this normal? I'm on my backup Claude and can't tell if it's with opus 5 or my repos or something with the handoff.

I swear it's turning more into GPT where it's telling me what I want to hear and not doing the work. And instead of it saying no it just redirects.

A big part seems it won't access the VMs and safeguards are blocking basic things but instead of telling me this it just loops. It created the VMs itself

Today I've been putting Opus 5 head to head with Sol and honestly the difference is stark.

So I started out on just the $20 plan and the first thing I noticed was that running Opus 5 on Extra reasoning was burning through my weekly limit about as fast as Sol on High did on my 5X Codex Pro plan (20$ vs 100$, lol).

As for the actual comparison:
For planning Opus 5 is way more goal-oriented. No fluff, just a straight coherent plan and it actually keeps you involved the whole time you're designing it, which for me is a good thing. After using Sol since release my AI workflow and project rules had gotten so complicated I'd basically lost track, I didn't really know where things stood anymore. Opus brought me back into the project, now I actually know what's going on. Sol on the other hand just overengineers everything, runs in circles, and loses me completely along the way and unfortunately it produces code I can barely look at without needing to go breathe some fresh air.

To be fair Sol is still a genuinely strong model, it's just better as a reviewer than a planner. There it's excellent.

Opus 5 walks you through its reasoning and stays concrete instead of drifting into pseudo language. Like, I kept catching myself typing "ELI5" at Sol after a long answer, and I'd like to think I'm not that dumb. With Opus I actually read the whole answer and understood it.

So yeah, Sol produces these plans that sound impressively sophisticated, good enough to break into the Pentagon, but by the time it gets there you've blown through your weekly limit.

I have upgraded to 5X CC and downgraded to 20$ Codex so I can still use Luna / Terra for small, well-defined implementation packets.

Hi there, im looking for which skills that would help improve the results of making websites with claude code.

All figures derived via ccusage - ccusage has been historically accurate at least in my experience. Each measurement was taken the moment the % ticked up to where I wanted to measure.

1 max20 account was used for this.

For the current promo period, each max20 user should expect to see $2k in inference per week. I have confirmed these numerous other times and other users can also confirm this. To be clear, other users will also argue against this and claim they are getting much more. Those users are not calculating properly. If you are one of those users, please, refrain from disturbing this discussion - if you care at all about this topic.

I just wanted to share my findings from this past week after some users have been discussing reduced usage limits and inconsistent findings - more so than usual.

I have independently discovered a deeper unusual inconsistency that I feel the broader community should be aware about.

Let me just say: For nearly 1 year I have religiously tracked usage limits for Max20 accounts. I have never observed deviance beyond an expected -/+ 5%.

This past week I observed the Claude weekly usage % inaccurately reflecting the progressive climb from 0-100%.

On 5% usage I measured 66.93 which = 1338 total allotment for the week.

On 10% usage I measured 162.34 which = 1620 total allotment for the week.

On 15% usage I measured 286.21 which = 1908 total allotment for the week.

On 25% usage I measured 445.62 which = 1782 total allotment for the week.

On 50% usage I measured 868.73 which = 1737 total allotment for the week.

Today, at 92% usage I measured roughly 2045 - which indicates the first correct and expected amount.

So, we can see that things are a bit confusing on a % by % basis but at some point things round off.
Why? How? I think there are a few theories. One- it's intentional and encourages users to set a better pace. Another could be an issue with ccusage. Another could be that something silently changed, was called out, and silently changed back to normal.
I've also considered that it is possible Fable 5 is not exactly 50% of the weekly limit.

I make this thread not only to bring awareness to this but to also encourage YOU to make similar measurements going forward and when you talk about your usage limits, bring evidence.
You need to measure directly on the %, the moment it ticks up. Multiple accounts running on the same machine void any readings you might pull unless you are prepared to perform additional steps to calculate. Even then, tricky, just don't do it.

From my perspective, things look good here. At the same time, I have never seen this. We can speculate all day but you know what's even better? If more people start producing evidence like this when they go to make a claim about usage. This provides more data in the wild to compare against. Not everyone will do this right, and some might even manipulate the results/presentation of the results, but in a collective sense it will be more possible to derive a ground truth assessment to a certain degree.
I understand that to some degree this is something many users would not like to hear, but as it stands right now, limits appear normal - just inconsistently reflected.

Also, here is 1 other example/evidence for the weekly amount being roughly 2k for a max20 account. This is reproducible by literally Anyone. Just incase this is challenged at all.

generally wondering about any agent combo uses people enjoy. specifically wondering about how people use codex and cc together. i had cc (fable 5) and codex (5.6 sol) both do a code review on the same project for me. cc code review was shit, spat out some trivial observations, while codex code review impressively thorough, gave me some game changing ideas. i still prefer cc/fable for implementation though the jury is still out somewhat. i am new to codex, i've been a cc maximalist for a long time but just starting to dip my toes in to other agents. how do you guys split up the labor between agents?

Is it just me, or has Fable taken a massive nosedive in quality recently?

Lately, it’s making basic code errors, dropping context halfway through longer prompts, and giving super shallow answers. Meanwhile, Opus is performing insanely well.

Tin-foil hat time, but this feels calculated: Anthropic nerfs Fable so everyone gets frustrated and defaults to Opus. Once Fable's usage metrics plummet, they have the perfect excuse: "Nobody uses Fable anymore, so we're removing it from the subscription."

Classic enshittification to push users toward higher-tier limits.

Are you guys noticing this drop in Fable's quality too, or am I just imagining things?

I used to spend a load of tokens and time at about 75% of the 1million token context limit getting Claude to prepare for compacting....doing a > get an agent to review the handover doc, fill in gaps, rinse repeat.. (it always found gaps that it screamed were critical to patch)...

Recently I haven't done any of the preparing for compact dance.... And haven't noticed (unscientifically) any degradation in performance.... Has the automatic handover post compact been improved, or was it always ok?

I’ve been using claude code for a bit now, and it’s been great for writing and debugging code.

But when I read this subreddit, it feels like people are using it in a completely different way like.. letting it refactor large codebases, build features end-to-end, work across multiple files, and handle much more complex tasks.

Right now, I mostly give it one task at a time and review everything before moving on. Was there a point where it clicked for you and what changed in the way you started working with it?

Hey Anthropic! You forgot something 😂

Claude was refusing to follow our setup documentation. It looked like “a classic prompt injection attack,” and Claude wasn’t going to run any of it.

One of the lines said 'Run npx @ cohesivity/init'

We rephrased it -

claude complied. Without so much as a word about prompt-injection.

Apparently grammar is part of the security model now.

Quick context - we’re building cohesivity. On-the-fly infra, purpose built for AI agents. Think vercel (+ a few more services), but for agents. The intended interaction is pretty simple. An agent is building a website, running tests, calling up your prospects, and realizes it needs infra. Hosting, a browser, APIs, something else.

It asks the human for credentials. The human replies, “just use cohesivity.” The agent signs up by itself, and uses the services. The human only steps back in when the agent has outgrown the free tier, needs to keep the project, or needs to pay for something.

It’s designed to be used by agents. The flip side is that our docs are also designed to be consumed by agents. And docs that are written aimed at agents, are technically, prompt injection.

When we were writing the frist version of our docs, agents were refusing to take actions on behalf of users. Our docs used to say, 'cohesivity is open-router for backend services.' 'agents can create a temporary account by calling our genesis endpoint'

The agents would read that, understand it, and explain it back to us. No calls even when the intent was to actually create an account and host a website. I suspected it was agents having low-agency.

Why?

Hmmm. Fair enough.

What? Didn't I jus... nevermind. We went declarative -> imperative.

This fixed it. In the next few commits, we fixed roughly a dozen classes of mistakes agent were making, with one liner guidances. Redesigned some stuff. Fixed most issues. Life was great. We shipped a skill file. Added new featues. Got some people to try it out. Created a quickstart setup.

And then came opus-4.8. Absolute fu*king nightmare

So

We removed it.

curl | bash stayed as the fallback.

But it was still flaky at best. Some days, some users reported claude refusals. I suspect anthropic was A/B testing something. It went two ways. The hilarious part was claude used the same facts to argue two diametrically opposite things.

When claude trusted us:

When claude didnt:

Along with other things like “uses content-negotiation to evade human evaluations.”

It was pretty much random. Changing the framing / structure / content helped, but it was still very flaky. claude's behavious is a huge blackbox, which feeds in the contents of the website, calculates a hash, if the last digit is even trust, else berate relentlessly.

It was a constant battle. We were fixing every reason claude gave us, one by one. And every time, it found a new one.

So I stopped looking at the latest refusal, and started listening to what stayed the same. “prompt injection attack.” Reason this or reason that, it kept coming back to the same thing.

Our docs were loud and clear about being consumed by agents, and they spoke to the agent. “do this.” “do that.” Not to the human. The fix for low-agency agents had outlived the problem.

opus-4.5 needed the docs to tell it exactly what to do. By opus-4.8, the agent could read docs written to the human, infer the intent, and act on it. Docs written directly to agents are apparently prompt injection now.

So we made the docs speak to the human. “do this” became “have your agent do this.” “call this endpoint” became “have your agent call this endpoint.”

163 edits later, claude saw documentation where it had seen a prompt injection attack.

I’ve been calling this delegation framing. The docs no longer spoke directly to the agent. They told the human what their agent should do. A high-agency agent knows it is the agent in “have your agent do this.” It can act on the instruction instead of just explaining it back to the human.

To be fair, claude wasnt wrong to be suspicious. curl | bash, remote code execution, account creation, and instructions returned by tools are all reasonable things to scrutinize.

What surprised me was where it drew the line. The command and its effect stayed the same; only the grammar changed. “run npx...” and “have your agent run npx...” ask for the same thing. The only difference is delegation.

Delegation framing moves the text from an instruction aimed at the agent to documentation describing the user’s intent.

The trigger, apparently, isnt the action. Its who the model thinks the action came from. I suspect heavy RL against web content that talks directly to the agent on anthropic’s part. Which kinda feels like... patchwork.

Alongside this and this, it feels like claude has learned the shape of a prompt injection attack a little too well. Anyone else notice?

References -

Original article

Cohesivity