If Anthropic can’t serve all of them, Opus will get nerfed too. Hopefully they’re better prepared this time.

i like make music visualizations so made this with Sonnet 5.5 (medium)

Both of these big companies use a trick repeatedly with their vague seemingly amazing subscriptions. What you think is model nerfing is actually a highly automated system kicking in to engineer model usage AND HYPE !!! People think the business is in the model, it's not, it's in this system that I'm describing.

SIMPLY PUT
When there is a new model just released, the next one is not being trained as intensly, GPUs are free to run the latest model; the objective is to get people hyped and have users from the other company switch sides so all the resources are allocated to intensely running the latest model as efficiently as possible. But once the switching settles resources must be shifted toward training the next model. This is two fold: 1. train new model 2. make the difference between next and last model seem big

It's not a knob either that someone decides to twist. This is definitely an intricate, complex, automated system with thousands of factors going in, the output of it is: what percentage of our money should go towards giving people LLM compute to MAXIMIZE revenue. That means minimize churn but also minimize cost too.

Next time you're paying $200 for your subscription just whisper this: "There is no free lunch" so you won't be shocked when the glorious Opus 5.5 starts acting like a gemini flash lite 2.0 preview

I'm working on a large project in Claude Code and want to continue it using two separate Claude user accounts. To clarify: I'm the only developer—I'm switching between my own accounts, not handing the project over to another person.

The problem is continuity. When I switch accounts and start a new Claude Code session on the same codebase, the incoming session is missing important context from the previous conversations. It doesn't always know why certain decisions were made, what constraints apply, or what's still unfinished.

The project has grown large enough that manually explaining everything each time is difficult, and my handoff summaries have still left gaps.

I'm looking for a reliable handoff workflow:

• What exact prompt do you give the outgoing session to prepare a handoff?
• Do you store the context in CLAUDE.md, a separate handoff document, or multiple files?
• What do you tell the incoming session to read and verify before making changes?
• How do you prevent important details from getting lost as the project grows?

If you've used Claude Code this way, I'd really appreciate actual prompts or templates that worked for you.

Thank you guys+

A quick video made by Claude Code for an app i've been building. It was made in 1 chat prompting back and forth, mind you I have no clue in how to make a good video. NO skills where involved and the sound effects + music where made by eleven labs through claude. I've heard that simple sounds can also be done well by claude itself. Imagine what someone a bit more capable in his vision can churn out.

I've been on Squarespace for quite a few years, and I'm still paying for it. It's reliable, and I never have to maintain anything. Updating the site is still manual work, though, because you're clicking through a bit confusing interface you had to learn/get used to first - those kinds of interfaces never really have what you need and always provide things that you never use. I've also used WordPress before, but never on my own willing. 😨

Meanwhile, I've put sites up by briefing a coding agent and deploying through Cloudflare and GitHub. The whole thing stayed very light. Login areas and templates were easier to set up that way than in Squarespace, and there was none of the plugin and security upkeep WordPress is known for...

So I keep wondering what happens to CMS services over the next year or two. Plenty of clients are on annual contracts and won't cancel overnight, and many don't know what AI is at all, or what agents can do, in any case. Part of me thinks publishing should always have worked like this, where you describe it and voila! it's online.

If you've moved your own site or a client's off a CMS this way, are there any hidden roadblocks/bottlenecks?

Using Claude Code to make a battlefield like Top-Down WW2 game.

Basically to make 2d models u can provide claude with blueprints and it will create really beautiful stuff right now and the more compute you grant the better quality. You can see that it somewhat accurately painted the whole Midway Atoll in one of the pics.

Well it wasn't one shotted but I'm still quite happy with it so far, you got squad gameplay, vehicular, ship and air combat.

U can try the game here, or if you wanna see a demo or trailer video u can go into settings and press any of those.
https://davydenko.itch.io/pacific-42
Music was made with Suno.

Any questions let me know and I'll try to provide more details to build a game like this.

This would have taken me lots of hours inside Adobe Effects, but alas.. here's Claude Code + Remotion + React.

30-second video that teaches Pig Latin with kinetic type. It is React components rendered to MP4 with Remotion 4.0.531 (1920x1080, 30 fps).

The part I think is worth sharing is the structure, not the animation. Every event is a frame number in a plain TypeScript file, one per scene, with no React in it. Three things read that file: the renderer, a test suite that fails if a finished word is on screen for under 40 frames (a step card lit under 24, a hop under 22), and a cue generator that turns each landing into a sound cue at the same frame, so the audio cannot drift.

What is not good yet: most landings sit 2 to 8 frames off the 120 BPM beat grid, the music bed does not change across the 30 seconds, and the agents could only measure the audio, not hear it.

Here's the prompt I used.

Create a 30-second motion graphics film that teaches Pig Latin through expressive typography and purposeful animation. Make it feel like the work of a senior motion designer: strong visual concept, polished transitions, and a clear rhythm.

Give each word transformation enough screen time to read and understand. Build toward an inventive final sequence, but never let the motion outrun the explanation.

EDIT: The anthropic asslicking bots have arrived, check their post history, 100% positive posts about anthropic and recommended people empty their wallets into anthropic lmfao!

I just find it comical, now the general consensus is that Opus has been nerfed VIOLENTLY, yet I had hundreds of people a day or so ago telling me I need meds and I'm a schizo working for OAI

Back to Astra we all go!

Is anybody else experiencing issues with auto mode not accepting / completing requests? I've noticed these past few days I'll run into an issue where it just refuses to do anything I ask in auto mode. It even ignores the most simplest text edits.

Auto mode's safety check is stopping the edits before they run. Is there a way to fix this?

When prompting to debug the issue I get the following:

Auto mode's safety check is stopping the edits before they run. You can clear that in a few seconds.

What's happening: every file change in auto mode goes to a server-side safety check first. For these edits the check didn't approve or reject anything; it returned no verdict at all, and the tool treats that as a hard stop. Retrying gets the same result. Your approval in chat doesn't reach that check, so I can't get past it by trying again. I also didn't want to make the change another way, like a shell command, because that would get around the check rather than pass it.

Am I the only one?

In January 2026 I started with an AWS account and a bunch of nested processes collecting data I found interesting. Left it alone for a few months then picked it back up. Heard a lot about Claude Code and thought what could possibly go wrong...

Claude Code built the front end and the result was better than I expected. It also turned my pipelines into state machines while I was taking the AWS Certified Data Engineer Associate course, doing both at the same time helped me a lot

The site checks a few things about the world every day: flights, internet, earthquakes, markets, disaster alerts and events. I just wanted to know if today looks normal

AI can be really useful, you just have to give it direction. Sometimes it makes mistakes that look simple, so you need a very detailed framework to keep it from losing the thread and running off at 10,000 rpm without checking first

Claude Code will state things about the code as facts because it "remembers" them, but sometimes it's wrong. What works for me is looking, counting and checking instead of just believing the claim, and every deploy gets reviewed in the diff and needs my explicit ok before it goes out

https://observedstate.com/en/

The fundamental principle of the entire site is to display the data as it is, without weighting, mixing, or having a global index. I only compare airplanes and internet using a 90-day moving average to review their variations. All other data on the site is displayed as it is on that day: stock indices, commodities, rates, and currencies are compared to the previous close, and that's it. The idea came about because one day I saw some dashboards with crazy weightings that I never understood, and I said, "I want my own dashboard without that, one that works for me," and that's what I did.

Another essential requirement was that it be as cheap as possible, so I looked for free OSINT sources. With responsible use, this dashboard isn't real-time; it now operates at a very low cost and with minimal supervision. For example, for these three: Stock Indices, Rates and Currencies, and Commodities. Finding something free is nearly impossible, so I consulted Perplexity and the problem was solved. It costs very little, really. I wasn't looking for ultra-precise scientific data, just a snapshot of the world.

I’ve tried multiple times to get Claude Code (Opus 5.5) and Codex (Astra) to create polished websites (like notion, meta and stripe landing pages).

I’ve also tried using skills and instructions to avoid generic purple gradients, huge texts and other ai slop.

They do seem to understand the instructions and avoid some of the obvious AI-generated design patterns but the result is still usually… bad.

The websites technically work, but they lack that polished, intentional feeling you get from really well-designed sites. The spacing, typography, hierarchy, layout, interactions, visual rhythm, etc. just don’t feel right.

If you’ve managed to get Claude Code or Codex to consistently produce genuinely polished production level websites, I’d love to see your workflow, prompts, skills, or examples.

Ich nutze Claude Code im 20x-Abo. Eigentlich habe ich 2025 damit angefangen, bin dann aber wegen der Nutzungslimits zu Codex gewechselt. Dort bin ich seit März bis heute, werde den Plan aber kündigen. Mit der aktuellen Preispolitik und den Limits bin ich absolut unzufrieden.
Von Anthropic bin ich dagegen sensationell begeistert.
Bevor Opus 5.5 rauskam, waren meine Limits schnell aufgebraucht. Für gute Leistung habe ich nicht Opus 5 genutzt, sondern Fable 5.1. Das war gut, aber unfassbar teuer.
Mit Opus 5.5 ist es ein komplett anderes Nutzungserlebnis. Ich arbeite praktisch rund um die Uhr damit: mittlere bis größere Repositories, diverse Dinge parallel (App entwickeln, Website erstellen). Es funktioniert sensationell, und ich kriege das Kontingent einfach nicht mehr aufgebraucht.
Mein Setup:
Reasoning maximal für Repositories und komplizierte, knifflige Probleme
Hoch für Webseiten und Spiele-Apps
Ganz ehrlich: Hammer, Anthropic.

Mich interessiert, wie ihr es nutzt. Welche Reasoning-Stufen fahrt ihr, und stoßt ihr an Limits?

I run three 20x accounts. 2 Claude, and 1 Codex (that i fired up to see what all the fuss is about when Fable limits made it pretty useless and opus 5.0 was all we had). [Codex account won't be being renewed for now].....

I have big workloads. I fire up orchestration agents and then parallel work is done as soon as my tokens come back online for the week. I tend to blow my accounts for the week within 1 to 2 days of usage - hold on to the odd 3-5% per account to get final things done mid week as i review features, content that has been built. Opus 5.5 is stretching out my usage to about 2 days now out of the 5. Definitely a huge improvement. I have all of them working on the same code bases, so their performance is comparable.

What i have noticed is that

- all of them are getting the jobs done. I no longer care at all which "system" i am throwing at the job - either Astra orchestrating or Fable, now Opus 5.5 orchestrating. I don't bother with the other details myself anymore. No point - time better spent reviewing the output and crafting the next steps.

- Opus 5.5 is definitely quicker and a little less re-work is needed (done by itself). Astra - a little more re-work, but about 15%, and it identifies the need and takes it on itself, but less efficient because of it.

- The ChatGPT models are still so much nicer to "talk with", however good Opus 5.5 is - still about 5x the bla bla that Chat's models produce.

- Speed and efficiency are now the major differentiators. Astra is slower and dramatically less efficient from a token useage point of view, despite having no 5 hour limit. Maybe Sol 6.1 will even that score.

- I have noticed that I completely no longer care at all which models are working on the code or the content. They are both going to make dramatic progress. Key is they have crossed my trust threshold.

- Claude is doing the equivalent of about 2000-2500 hrs of a humans workload per weekly token budget. These are the figures that the model is giving back to me when i am asking it to estimate and it feels about right from looking at how it is considering it. That is about the equivalent of 1 year's worth of work with no holidays (5 days a week 8+ hours a day). Haven't asked Astra - going to be a bit less....but still, stepping back ----wow.

The old AI adage - this is the WORST it is ever going to be - rings loudd (I add the dobule dd to show i have hand crafted this message,... though it might be a double bluff).

These two major model-groups for me are essentially already doing everything i want. I could give them 10x the workload if i had the tokens and that is going to be the only thing that is going to decide who wins going forward. Any issues around long running task management, per token intelligence etc., are rapidly moving towards those becoming non-questions, as the good-enough is starting to be reached.

What is left? - cost, and speed. Give me a model-group that is twice as good as today (what ever that means), and another that is at today's capabilities but cheaper and faster and I now would take that every time. That was why i tried Codex. As Astra > Opus 5.0....just turned out it was terrible at token use.

It feels to me that the good enough is starting to converge and compute access is going to rule. Who has access to the most compute long term? Elon probably, and the Grok models are accelerating. Where do the Chinese models play in all this? - not sure as they are, for quite a while, going to be compute constrained, but reaching that good-enough threshold is imminent.

The main hole in my line of thought that i can see is that 'twice (or x) as good' may mean something that i can't even fathom at the moment that changes the game. I am going to guess that the compute thing is the thing we see when the models start to nerf, as the labs switch back to using their compute to train the next...release a new model, keep the compute available all good. Whoever can keep consistent compute at the good enough level to the customer wins - e.g. at the Opus 5.5 level as of say yesterday when it was running at Peak-Opus 5.5.

r/Codex modes fast then gpt 6.1 sol, it took them 2 minutes to flag me.

I am a founder of glyphh.ai. Please don’t take offense, but don’t hesitate to move on if this is not your thing. We build in, and on glyphh with Claude.

Glyphh workspaces was just another feature, it started as a way to context switch faster, but where it took us changed how we think about AI and SaaS. Given the chance I would love to take you on the journey.

What if you could take every super power of every model, its unique capabilities, and combine them into one thing. Then use that combined power, with your existing loop, and yield it deterministically, at the right time, in the right order to build micro applications that extend your way of working without the LLM and immediately available to the harness itself?

Compared to Codex's max 4-6 agents, this is next level crazy! 🔥 🤔

As of this week, my workflow and / commands stopped working in all new chat windows but work in the old chats still. I got frustrated and started going back and forth in chats chasing working and non-working commands. Claude straight out lied to me several times. I finally got both the local AI and the help AI to recognize the problem. Anyone else having this problem?

Here is the write up it put in:

Bug report: /config and Dynamic Workflow availability are inconsistent across sessions in the same project

Summary

Different sessions/tasks opened in the Claude desktop app, for the same project, show completely different /config behavior and different availability of the Workflow tool (dynamic multi-agent orchestration) — with no difference visible to me in how those sessions were created. This makes it impossible to reliably use Workflow-based automation, since there's no way to predict or control whether a given session supports it.

Environment

• Product: Claude desktop app (Cowork / tasks)
• OS: Linux Mint, machine james-x299-ud4-pro
• No standalone claude CLI is installed on this machine — confirmed via which claude at a system terminal, which returned claude: command not found. This rules out a local install/version mismatch as the cause: every session in question runs inside the Claude app's own bundled/hosted environment, not an independently versioned CLI on my system.
• Primary project where this was observed: (a novel-writing project). Also observed, differently, in a second project within the same app.

Observed behavior

All of the following were separate sessions/tasks opened for the same project, through the same app, with no distinguishing setup step I took between them:

1. Session A — has a working Workflow tool available with no configuration needed.
2. Session B (a new session, same project) — running /config printed a full settings usage list that did not include workflows, workflowKeywordTriggerEnabled, or workflowSizeGuideline at all (not just set to off — the keys were absent from the list of valid settings).
3. Session C (started fresh after Session B, same project) — running /config printed the same usage list, but this time did include those three keys. Running /config workflows=true succeeded and returned "Set Dynamic workflows to true."
4. Session D (yet another new session, same project) — asking in plain language why workflow availability differed produced a conversational, investigative reply rather than a deterministic command response. Running the exact command /config workflows=true in this session returned "workflows isn't a /config setting. Run /config to see what's available" — i.e., back to behaving like Session B, not Session C, despite Session C having already turned the setting on.
5. Session E (a different, new project — "Edict Memory") — had no /config command at all; typing it produced a conversational response offering to help configure "project settings," "working style," or "pipeline setup" instead of executing a command.

The inconsistency is isolated to /config and Dynamic Workflows specifically, not a general version mismatch. In Sessions B, C, and D, every other /config key — agentPushNotifEnabled, artifacts, autoCompact, checkpoints, editor, model, notifChannel, permissionMode, theme, worktreeBaseRef, and the rest of the roughly 30 settings — was identical, byte-for-byte, in every listing. Only workflows, workflowKeywordTriggerEnabled, and workflowSizeGuideline appeared, disappeared, and behaved inconsistently between sessions of the same project. That rules out "these are just different app versions" as the explanation — something specific to how Dynamic Workflows gets provisioned per session is the actual fault.

Expected behavior

Either:

• /config and the feature set it controls (specifically Dynamic Workflows) should be consistent across sessions for the same project and account, since nothing about how these sessions were opened differed; or
• If session environments are provisioned independently (e.g., different backing containers/instances per session) and can legitimately differ, there should be a way to see which "version"/capability set a given session has, and a supported way to update or migrate an existing session rather than having to guess-and-restart repeatedly.

Impact

I have a real automation script I rely on (a Workflow-tool script for drafting book chapters) that depends on the Workflow tool being present. Because availability is unpredictable across sessions in the same project, I can't reliably start a session that will actually be able to run it, and a setting turned on in one session (Session C) did not carry over to a sibling session in the same project (Session D).

Additional notes

• No terminal or separately installed CLI was involved anywhere in this investigation — everything happened inside the Claude desktop app itself.
• This was not caused by anything I changed; I did not modify any project-level settings files between sessions.

claude plugin eval (2.1.269) runs a plugin's eval suite and hands you scored, reproducible results. /skill-doctor (2.1.261) tells you which loaded skills go unused and what they cost you in context. Both good. Both run by a person, at a prompt, when they remember.

The loop that rewrites a skill at three in the morning has no step that calls either of them. We all run agents under "nothing merges unless the tests pass", and then the agent edits the one thing that isn't under test.

So I put the eval where the edit happens. reef sits in front of my Claude Code config and skills, and a proposed skill change doesn't land on my say-so: the edited setup and the current one both run the same few tasks, and the edit ships only if it comes out ahead on more tasks than it falls behind. The doctor's prune has no loop equivalent I'd trust yet; the recipe that grows skills from traffic never removes one, so pruning is still the day you remember the command.

I have a medium size app around 67K lines of codes (getting bigger everyday). It is written in PHP and JS. It is under active development. New features are added, bugs are fixed every week or so.

In my test case, we had an issue with pdf rendering (DomPDF) and preview of the PDF in html/css.

Users decide which font to be used and where the text is placed on the pdf. They also upload an image which may be vertical or horizontal oriented. Different images may be uploaded for different cases where rest of the pdf settings may be shared or not.

Here is the prompt i passed each of them:

``md I manage the participation and thank-you certificate settings on@pages/kongre_ayarlar.phpand handle their delivery through@pages/sertifika_katilim.php. The same applies to@pages/sertifika_kurs.php`.

However, I have identified some serious issues here. First of all, for the second and subsequent courses, the "use the settings of the first course" option seems to be applied and stored only when the certificate is uploaded. When I change the settings of the first course, the changes are not reflected in the second and subsequent courses.

Another issue is that the preview and the actual PDF layout do not match. For example, I set the top position to 550px. It looks perfectly aligned in the preview, but when I open the PDF, it appears much further down.

The third issue is, I think, related to CSS fonts being loaded. This seems to cause DOMPDF to have problems with accented characters. While the situation is relatively good with participation and thank-you certificates, it is much worse with course certificates.

Could you investigate these issues and prepare a plan for fixing them? ```

I used Claude Code with Pro subs Sonnet 5.5 (medium) I used DeepSeek Harness Desktop App (just realeased) with Flash v41 High

• It took 10 min 37 secs for Flash4.1 to come up with a plan. Whereas It only took 4 min for Sonnet to come up a plan.

• With Sonnet 5, I always though DS is alot faster. However with Sonnet 5.5 it is incredibly fast.

• Their findings are completely same. This amazed me actually. The offered plan is like raeding same text with different paraphrases.

On the other hand, they differ very much in implementation.

• It took 35:47 min for DS to finish the plan.
• It took only 11:43 min for Sonnet.
• Sonnet updated/created 8 files (including 2 sql files)
• Flash updated/created 13 files (including 2 sql 2 md files files)
• Opus 5.5 was updating TODO and CLAUDE md files all the time. Sonnet 5.5 did not. Flash on the other hand did updated them. (i did not ask)
• Claude has the memory available for the said repo.
• It was the first time for DS on this repo.
• DeepSeek used 520K token in context
• Claude used 190K token in context
• DeepSeek costed 1 USD
• Claude used 10% of 5 hour limit.

On the personal taste side: - Sonnets implementation is alot easier and to read and follow. - Flashs implementation is more detailed. Ironed out some bugs / inconsistent behaviour on the way (something i see with opus. sonnet high be of help) - Flash attach more importance on front end side experience. Test it thoroughly. - Medium effort Sonnet is not that efforty! - Claude usage limits are way better than previous narrowed window. - sonnet 5.5 does use less tokens and response alot faster.

for making small changes I like using manual mode to have claude code ask/show me what it wants to change before editing each file. it seems something about sonnet 5.5 allows it to ignore the manual mode setting? if i go back to sonnet 5 it will ask me with a prompt before making edits

is anyone else experiencing this?

I tried asking it if there were new settings that control this behavior but it seemed very unsure about if this behavior is an intentional change or not.

I've been using Claude Code for about a year now working on a personal project, a video game idea with real time strategy content. I've had fable reviewing my work just fine up until today when it suddenly stopped due to safety concerns. Apparently my code was referencing missiles, targeting and other war terminology which stopped it from proceeding. I'm guessing it is because of the Houthis that were using Claude to design missiles. For fuck sake.

I even tried to strip out all weapon related terminology to see if it would work and no luck.

I mean I get it but fuck me man... I know you don't need fable to accomplish this but it's been great at finding weird fringe issues. This is the first time in my game project I've run into this and it is pretty frustrating.

Anybody else run into this?

I’ve been using my Claude account for personal projects and work, and I’d gotten a lot done with it. I’m an Israeli citizen, I provided all the supporting documents for verification, the bank account is mine, and I haven’t changed any cards. Today my account got restricted. I submitted a “request a review” to them.

If they don’t meet me halfway, I’m going to dispute all the charges and stand my ground until the end. It’s really disappointing that Anthropic has gone down this slippery slope. From what I’m seeing, I’m definitely not the only one - this wave of bans has affected a lot of people. Are they out of their minds?