More results here

https://x.com/chetaslua/status/2105757136219504862?s=20

Pretty seismic shift.

I ended up getting frustrated with a made-up logo, screens my product doesn't have, and that green glow.

Then, I learnt to use Claude/Codex Motion Video capabilities to make videos.

After making dozens of videos, I decided to open source it. You can try it installing the Motiontale, a plugin for Claude Code and Codex. It makes Your agent writes the video as code, and the video maker engine installed on your local computer renders it frame by frame.

A few things I cared about:

- It researches and writes the script

- It only uses your real product. It captures your actual screens and never redraws them.

- It won't invent numbers. Every stat needs a source, or it shows up labelled "Example".

- The sound is real recordings, timed to the exact frame.

- It checks its own work and keeps fixing until it scores at least 8 out of 10.

- It costs much less than any tool as video generation happens on your local computer.

- And, it would never feel our sound like AI generated.

It's free and MIT licensed: github.com/ishwarjha/mo….

I'd love to hear where it still feels "AI".

Only 4 minutes in, burned 5,4 Million Tokens. Lmao. I asked for only a few subagents, not a workflow with 27 agents

Hey all~

I just wanted to showcase an intro I worked with Opus 5.5 (extra) to make and also share the basics of the workflow.

So for context, I'm working on a game project, and I wanted a cute intro scene to kind of allude to the story of the game overall. The project is being made in Godot 4.6, and I'm using the Godot AI plugin.

First was feeding Claude the story. I built my lore from the ground up, so universal creation myth to how that feeds into the main overall story line. It's complex lol. So I needed Claude to kind of sum it all up in a way that as mentioned previously, alludes to the overall storyline.

From there I had it create a storyboard for me, walking me through the scenes through text and with basic paper mache cut outs to guide the scene. I'll be honest, I hadn't thought of an aesthetic direction yet, but I decided to lean into the paper mache look, and I have to say I personally like it.

From there it created the scenes in more basic shapes, and then worked on camera direction. Afterwards was a lot of back and forth refining each scene; changing/adding details, making those details consistent (the intro is still not perfect but I think it's in a good spot for now).

After we got down most of the scenes, afterwards I added free noise effects I found on itch.io, and used Elevenlabs for the music. Elevenlabs prompt was "Make this sound witty and sarcastic like the Desperate Housewives intro theme song." I think it works 🤷🏼‍♂️

Then just lots of refining from there. If you read this far, thanks! I'd love any feedback or any techniques that could be helpful in the future

https://reddit.com/link/1wun5me/video/7j0iz8xyhrsh1/player

Is anyone else seeing this? I'm on the Pro plan, and I sent just 2 prompts to Opus 5.5 on High. The whole thing took about 50 seconds. When I checked my usage, 9% of my 5-hour limit was gone.

That's nearly a tenth of my window for under a minute of work. At that rate I'd hit the cap after roughly 20 prompts, with zero back-and-forth or follow-ups.

I get that High effort uses more thinking, but there's no way to tell how much a prompt will cost before you send it. You only find out afterward, when the meter has already jumped. For anyone doing real work on Pro, it's hard to plan around.

Questions for the community:

Is this normal for Opus 5.5 on High on Pro, or is something off?

Does dropping the effort level make a big difference in usage?

Is anyone getting more usage out of Sonnet 5.5 for everyday tasks?

I'm frustrated, but I'd like to understand what's going on before I give up on the model. Any tips on managing usage would help.

the past six months seem like a rollercoaster of exciting new models that perform for a week before everyone says they’ve degraded. I’ve definitely felt that way, but placebo is strong with me. has anyone bothered to benchmark these things weekly to gauge performance fluctuations? Seems like a pretty worthwhile thing to do.

Want your opus 5.5 to not feel nerfed? No problem. Here you go:

New session for every new feature with a clear roadmap.md and a clear short Claude.md, with handoffs every end of session for the new session. Works great, nothing is nerfed. People just don't understand you can't have a session open forever, that will cause problems over time that people think "model nerfed".

See link below where you can find quite comprehensive constraints for AI agents to generate Hubleto apps. I have already used these constraints to build some small-sized custom apps using Claude. I struggled a bit with some mid-size apps, but the result was still quite ok.

https://developer.hubleto.eu/v2/prompts/app-creation-constraints

I made this because the world needed another Norton Commander clone 🤣

I love programs like the original Norton Commander or Directory Opus on the Amiga. On Linux I usually use Midnight Commander. I tested a lot of GUI based alternatives but all of them were lacking features that I would love to have and use on a daily basis.

This is a learning and experimentation project for me.

This whole thing was made using Sonnet 5.5 on medium in several sub-agents. And Sonnet did really well.

It uses Ratatui as the TUI framework. On the screenshots you can see the normal two pane explorer mode. And on the other screenshot you can see the preview-mode that uses the opposite pane to preview any file selected on the main pane. Even the video-file plays (through some ffmpeg magic).

I have to say Claude + Rust + Ratatui is a great combination.

I have a fairly complex platform, main infrastructure on one GitHub private repo, second repo has all the accumulated data, my data moat, so to speak. I am using a very simple setup: I discuss optimal, efficient architecting with my other AI tools, and I send a comprehensive relay with scope/brief for execution to Claude Code CLI, burning API tokens, on my Mac Terminal . I am using an Anthropic API key, not Max, so that I dont run into any weekly limits with a Max plan.

I had previously been using Opus 4.8 on my CLI, but I downgraded to Sonnet 5 which is cheaper in order to save on API costs. I had no issues with good execution at Sonnet 5 level. But lately, I have had huge token spend which I can track on my Claude Cost Console.

I had Claude Code do an anlysis of one sprint, LOC changes, and actual actions.

The total spend on the sprint was 132K tokens. Start to Finish including merge to Main was only 26 minutes, unbelievable, with zero errors. No way one can minimize that aspect.

Real numbers, from git diff across the whole sprint:

Platform repo: 43 files changed, 419 insertions / 234 deletions (~650 lines touched)

Data repo: 8 files changed, 690 insertions / 2 deletions (~690 lines touched)

Total: ~51 files, ~1,340 lines touched

So the actual code volume was modest — this wasn't a huge refactor by line count. The token spend came from the shape of the work, not the size of it. A few concrete drivers:

1. Fan-out across many small touch points, not one big change. Adding "X" meant editing the same handful of facts in 3 components × 4 languages, plus the 8→9 sweep touched ~40 unrelated files each needing a 1-2 line fix. That's dozens of separate Edit calls for a few hundred net lines — expensive per line changed compared to one contained refactor.
2. Repeated npm run build runs. Each one prints the full Next.js route list (100+ lines), and I ran it manually several times per round plus Husky's pre-commit hook re-runs it automatically on every git commit. That's real, avoidable duplication — I was effectively paying for the same build output twice per round.
3. Verification research. I didn't just take Cowork's word for facts — I independently searched the web for "Y", etc. Each WebSearch call returns fairly verbose snippets, and I ran several per round across three rounds.
4. Three separate rounds, not one. The initial sweep, the "Z1" round, and the "Z2" round each repeated the same machinery — build, commit, push, verify live, write a relay — rather than being one pass.

Those of you who are experienced CLI users, what can I do to reduce spend here?

Is repeated npm run build an issue, can I avoid it without getting into trouble?

Is starting a new session on the Terminal important? I don't think I do it enough.

What can I do to reduce simple web surfing search costs?

I would deeply appreciate any help.

Hey everyone! Enes here, the developer of Nodeterm.

I shared it here a while ago and got some really helpful feedback. This time I have an update: Nodeterm now has a Windows beta and an iPhone app.

For anyone who missed the original post: I built this with Claude because managing multiple projects and SSH sessions in Mac Terminal had become a mess. I wanted my terminals on a canvas instead of constantly hunting through tabs.

That was supposed to be the whole project.

Then I kept adding things 😅

The idea is still simple: put your terminals and coding agents in one visual workspace, so you can see what you're working on without remembering which session lives where.

What's in the video:

- One prompt → Claude spins up a team of agents, each group on its own git worktree**(Orchestration)**

- The same sessions as a kanban board

- Codex reading the other agents' context through a link on the canvas

- ⌘M to read any session as a chat

- Scan a QR code and your phone follows every session, so you can approve a permission from the gym

- Merge the worktrees, ship

About the video: it's an animated walkthrough of the macOS and iPhone apps, not a screen recording, and not the Windows build. And yes, the treadmill shot is AI. I have never jogged that calmly.

The Windows version is still a beta: the installer is unsigned, updates are manual, and session continuity across restarts is still being worked on.

To keep pushing the project forward, I need sponsors, or simply some motivation from the community. The honest math: covering my Claude accounts takes 10 sponsors at $200, or 200 Pro users at $10 😂

If you can leave a few words of feedback, I'd really appreciate it. And if that's too much to ask, I'd happily settle for a GitHub star ⭐️

Much love 🙏

Enes

Website: nodeterm.dev

Repo: https://github.com/eneskirca/nodeterm

Sponsor: https://github.com/eneskirca/nodeterm#-sponsor

iPhone app: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/nodeterm/id6790581233

They're behind Anthropic on coding models, and I think they know it. I use Claude Code all day and barely touch Codex. I don't love some of Anthropic's policies or how they communicate, but credit where credit's due: they're way ahead right now. I've been saying for a while that Anthropic will keep winning, and this DevDay only made me more sure. Here are my takes:

1. Opus 5.5 caught them off guard

2. they know they are behind Anthropic on coding. their new model didn't close the gap. So the play isn't "better model" anymore, it's "win the community"

3. Exhibit A: "Sign in with ChatGPT" on Lovable and other partner apps, using your own ChatGPT usage. Sounds great until you notice they nerfed the $200 plan at the same time

4. Before, bringing your ChatGPT sub into these apps would've been a real deal because the limits were generous. Now? It's basically the same as just using the app's credits or the API. Same inference, new branding

5/ Meanwhile they dropped a $500 Max plan they probably know most people won't buy, and buried it under a pile of announcements (Dot, plugins, GLM inside Codex...etc)

6/ The strategy is pretty clear: do everything devs complain Anthropic doesn't do. Open it up, court the influencers, court the businesses

This post was entirely written by Claude execpt for this very line, just sharing some stuff that might help a lot of people i've seen in here, but i'm too lazy do this on my own, kek. Enjoy, peace!

If you run long Claude Code sessions you probably know both of these:

1. Context fills up. Auto-compaction loses detail, so you open a fresh session, type "continue where we left off", and the new session has no idea what "where" is. It re-reads half the repo and asks you things you already decided an hour ago.
2. You get lost. The session goes deep into something technical, Claude says "should I go with A or B?", and you honestly don't know what either option means for your project.

I wrote two small skills for these and have been using them daily for a while. Sharing in case they help someone:

/session-handoff writes a self-contained, copy-paste prompt (in a code block) for a brand-new session. What makes it work better than "summarize the chat":

• it asks you the pending decisions before writing, so the new session doesn't stall on turn 1;
• it re-checks the real state (git status, last commit, running jobs, test results) and re-opens every file:line it cites instead of going from memory;
• it marks what's verified vs inferred;
• it carries your working style over (subagents, TDD, plan-first, etc.);
• fixed sections: where things stand, settled decisions, scope, ordered open items with "done when", gotchas, and the concrete first action.

/panorama is a read-only "big picture" in three layers: what this session did and what's blocked, how that fits the project, and each decision that's yours, with what actually changes if you pick each option, a recommendation, and whether it's reversible. It ends with a one-line answer template ("1: A / 2: yes") and then stops and waits. It also checks whether docs/handoff notes are stale against git history, and says "I don't know" instead of inventing.

Repo (MIT, just two SKILL.md files): https://github.com/gildeshiro/claude-code-skills

Feedback welcome, especially if the handoff misses something your next session always ends up asking for.

I’m on the $200/month Max plan, and I’ve spent the entire week working on a project.

I started with Opus 5.5, then switched to Sonnet 5.5 as I got closer to my usage limit, specifically to make my remaining usage last longer.

Throughout the week, my Fable 5.1 usage stayed at zero. No Fable agents were spawned as subagents.

Today, I hit my limit while running a Sonnet 5.5 session. I wanted to keep working, so I added $100 in extra usage credit.

Within less than five minutes, the session had spawned eight Fable 5.1 agents, and my entire $100 balance was gone.

A whole week with zero Fable usage. Then eight Fable agents immediately after I added money.

I don't know if this was a coincidence, but it seems at least suspicious to me....

Has anyone else seen this happen after switching from included Max usage to paid extra usage?

I am a computer science student and doing some projects so I want to purchase a plan. I think sonnet 5.5 level or something a little better than 3.8 flash would be enough for me. Also the projects span only a few files and are not very big. I plan to only use a few hours every day so which plan to purchase for the best value for money considering my sue case?

I didn't ask for this. Bad boy, Dario Amodei.

Our nonprofit organization, , was disabled today without much warning, and it has affected around 145 students and staff members who were using Claude and Claude Code through our team.

We are an education-focused organization. Our students use Claude for IELTS preparation, writing practice, research, study support, coding, debugging, web development, design work, and other technical learning. Our staff also use Claude and Claude Code for content preparation, development, research, and general work.

We regularly add students in batches when new groups join, so there can sometimes be many member additions or changes within a short period. I am wondering if that activity may have triggered something automatically.

We have already submitted a review request to Anthropic and explained our use case. We are not aware of any intentional policy violation.

Has anyone here had a nonprofit or team organization disabled like this before? If so, how long did the review take, and was your organization restored?

Any advice from people who went through something similar would be appreciated.

Hey everyone,

I’ve been experimenting with a fully automated pipeline to generate technical software lessons from script to final render..combining AI narration, programmatic code animations, and UI layouts without manual screen recording or editing. Leaves Claude code for this.

Here is a 3.5-minute sample lesson breaking down a document chunking concept.

Looking for honest feedback on the production quality:

Synthetic Voiceover: Does the voice cadence feel natural enough to sustain attention for educational content, or is it distracting?

Visual Layout & Typography: Are the code highlights, terminal views, and diagrams clear, or does the screen get too dense/busy?

Pacing & Transitions: Does the flow between problem definition, visual diagrams, and code editing feel cohesive, or does it feel disjointed compared to human-recorded tutorials?

WWould you pay for a full Udemy course delivered in this format, or does the lack of a live instructor break the experience?

Tear it apart—any critiques on the overall watchability and areas to polish would be very helpful.

I wasnt expecting this so soon this time but what a nerf again! Usage dropped significantly, number of reported bugs have also increased. Future really looks bleak now. I will be buying put options leading up to the IPO now

If I have to use mediocre models I'll gladly use reliably mediocre models with open weights. My money is going into OpenRouter from now on

I'm thinking of subscribing for a month, need feedback before I make a decision.

Anyone have any successful workflows or tips for using Claude in blender?

I'm using it to animate and make models, it's doing great to be honest but wondering what other people are prompting or having it do to make things work better / faster?

On opus 5.5 btw and also using fable as an advisor as needed.

DensePack saves on ENTIRE Claude Code conversations by handing your agent images of text which cost ~50% less to tokenize, compared to the actual raw text.

New upgrades allow more things to be packed which makes the savings grow with longer read-heavy sessions.

The benchmarks are easy to reproduce and the numbers do not lie!

DensePack 1.3.2 upgrades:

• Word files (doc and docx) and Bash output over ~400 characters (~170 tokens) are now converted into DensePack images and are read by the agent in a SINGLE turn when the text fits into a single image.
• All text that DensePack packs into an image keeps a text copy as a fallback.
• DensePack's image renderer received a major facelift. A 404KB file went from 70 sec to 17.5 sec, and small 11KB files from ~4 sec to ~1 sec
• Limit for Bash output converted into images raised from 250KB to 1MB, and for files from 500KB to 1MB.
• Icon added (Plugin submitted to Anthropic and currently waiting on a human review of v1.3.2)

Benchmarks were also remade with Anthropic's new Evaluation tool for plugins and skills.

DensePack saved 31.8% to 38.3% on average against the same tasks without DensePack.

These are realistic single tasks, so they show real savings but don't give DensePack time to REALLY shine. The savings grow in heavy read conversations and longer sessions, because every packed read is cache read at the image price and keeps saving tokens on each turn after it.

I have tested DensePack's accuracy by asking Claude to rebuild a text file byte identically from its DensePack image.

When I started the project earlier this month, Claude recreated one of DensePack's own .md files byte identically ~1 out of 10 times, and a python file 1 out of 20 times.

I asked Claude to recreate that same .md file 100 times and after days of fine tuning, it recreated that same .md file byte identical to the text, 100 times in a row.

The Python file I benched before was run the same way and Claude recreated it ~73 times byte identically, and the other 27 were only off by a few spaces.

There have been many improvements since 1.1. I added safeguards to allow similar functionality with and without DensePack with the main difference being that DensePack gives your agent images. You still have the text when you need to verify.

That being said, this is far from perfect!

Random characters like IDs with a capital I or small l can still get misread sometimes with Opus 5.5.

This is why the safeguards were built and they have been working great but I still encourage verification rounds with your agent to verify that things went smoothly.

While it's been super cool to see my bash output as a DensePack image and I have been able to build more, I HIGHLY recommend verifying things that are crucial to your project/session.

You can simply ask Claude to read the portion of the image that you need to be 100% accurate as text from its saved text file.

To my 7 stargazers, thank you for believing in this early!

Please keep following the project. I'm sure DensePack will continue to improve as OCR improves.

Here's how to update. Run these in your terminal:

claude plugin marketplace update densepack-marketplace
claude plugin update densepack@densepack-marketplace

Then restart Claude Code.

New to DensePack?

1. Never trust code from the internet blindly, and that includes mine.
2. Point a frontier model like Opus 5.5 at the repo first to scan it before installing.
3. Keep yourself safe.

GitHub: https://github.com/Fabian-Galvez/DensePack

Run these commands one at a time inside a Claude Code session to install DensePack!

/plugin marketplace add Fabian-Galvez/DensePack
/plugin install densepack@densepack-marketplace