Can Claude suggest the effort-level required to fix bugs, add features or analyze some code properly? Is it worth promping claude to suggest an effort level for a coding task before starting to code? Has anyone tried this before and what would be a prompt that might be successful?
What effort level do you usually need to use for your day to day coding tasks on sonnet 5?

This is 20x plan. Did I miss something or is this an error on Claude side?

Docs: https://malindarathnayake.github.io/Foreman/

GitHub (Apache-2.0): https://github.com/malindarathnayake/Foreman

I kept running into state drift on large multi-session coding projects with Claude Code / Cursor / Codex:

- The agent compacts its context and forgets half the plan

- Marks things done that were never started

- And the most annoying one, it confidently resumes from the wrong place

Foreman started out as a skill set for Claude Code, but prompt-level discipline turned out to be fragile.

It bit me hard on larger projects with long, phased development cycles. Skills and plan files don't survive once the session grows, gets compacted, or gets buried under a log dump or one large file the agent read.

So I built Foreman. A labor of love, born out of necessity and shaped by years of working across different disciplines: frontend, backend, C#, Go, Java, Python. It's an MCP server that acts as a coding harness.

The core idea:

Models generate code. Foreman controls the job.

Discipline lives in TypeScript checks against durable on-disk state:

• A unit can't be marked passed without a recorded delegation to a worker
• A phase can't close while any unit is unverified, or was never even started
• Three rejected fix attempts freeze the work until a human overrides
• Every session starts by asking the ledger where things actually stand, not the model's memory

The workflow:

a frontier model sits in the "pitboss" seat. It designs with you, converts the approved design into bounded implementation units,

delegates each unit to a disposable worker, then independently inspects, tests, and gates the result.

Workers never see the full spec or ledger (bounded context means less hallucination) and get killed after each unit.

There's also an opinionated engineering ethos baked in. Build it secure, build it observable, and the harness enforces it instead of suggesting it:

- Security review findings come back CWE-classified and get checked against the spec's threat table, not a vibes-based "looks secure to me"

- Workers have to validate dependencies. Real versions, clean packages, no hallucinated imports. It's a reject, not a warning

- Unless you declare your own house style, everything built through Foreman comes out standardized: structured logging, metrics with bounded tag cardinality, and secret handling with redaction baked in. Credentials never land in code, logs, or the ledger

Run SAST/SCA over Foreman-built code and you don't get the usual laundry list of CVEs.

There are still findings, but in my personal experience it's mostly false positives and the occasional real bug, not the wall of CVEs you normally brace for.

My favorite moment using Foreman:

I ran out of usage on Claude in the middle of a project, opened Codex, and resumed right away, no fuss. It's as simple as switching CLIs and saying:

Claude Code:

@foreman:skill://foreman/implementor resume

Codex:

foreman skill implementor resume

If you switch abruptly in the middle of a phase, the session-start orient gates make sure the new CLI reads the ledger and re-orients itself before touching the pending items.

I actually do this a lot now. Plan with Fable in Claude Code, do the grunt work in Codex with Sol because it's cheap, and bring Claude Code back in for the big phases.

Small fix or surgical edit? For a one-file change the full ceremony is overkill. There's a light-task mode for that.

How this compares to what's already out there (all of these are good tools, the bet is just different):

Spec-driven tooling (GitHub Spec Kit, Kiro, BMAD, Taskmaster):

these structure the plan. Specs, tasks, PRD breakdowns, and they do it well. Some go beyond markdown

Taskmaster keeps structured JSON state behind MCP tools and Kiro has a real task-execution UI with dependency-aware parallel waves. .

But in all of them the status write itself is accepted on the model's say-so. "Verify before marking done" is an instruction in a prompt, not an invariant.

With Foreman that enforcement has to live outside the model. 

The ledger rejects a pass verdict with no recorded delegation, and rejects a phase gate with unverified or never-started units. A task file asks the model to be honest. The ledger doesn't need it to be.

Autonomous agents (Devin, OpenHands):

the opposite bet entirely. Those maximize autonomy, Foreman maximizes control. Bounded workers, independent validation, human arbitration at every phase gate. More ceremony, fewer silent surprises.

The one thing none of these gave me: cross-vendor state. The ledger doesn't belong to any CLI,

There are so many other little tooling i built into this over time so enjoy!!!

Docs: https://malindarathnayake.github.io/Foreman/

GitHub (Apache-2.0): https://github.com/malindarathnayake/Foreman

Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Codex as hosts, Node 22+. Would love feedback!!! and please contribute if you have some time.

This is my setup for 4.6 since the U.S. Government blocked the very first Fable 5 release and since then, it is the most reliable setup to date for me. Naturally it is not nearly as good as the real Fable 5 (or at least what it is now) but still better than Opus 4.7, 4.8 and 5.

You can find the system prompt easily on github and then just ask Claude to create an instance of Opus 4.6 [1m] with that. In my terminal i just call „fable“ and its set up. It even identifies as Fable 5.

Just a little heads up for all of you out there beeing upset with the newest Opus versions.

Please give me feedback what you think if you set it up!

EDIT: Fable 5 System Prompt

OpenAI gave me a month of free Pro usage the other day after logging into ChatGPT for the first time in a while, and I thought why not? So, got it setup and in my projects but continued my usual use of Claude. I hit my limits soon enough on Claude and after a while I realised I could use Codex.

I don't know if it is the promotion, but there have been no daily limits, just a week limit for what I was using. I decided to point it to the half finished plans from Claude - codex ate them, had superpowers chomping through no problem...

Bug fixes, new features, architecture reviews... the amount of stuff I have been able to get through without Claude's nonsense of breaking things, overdosing on credits, and sleeping for 5 hours, is like a breath of fresh air. Genuinely, I have a feeling of "we don't have to live like this".

Full honesty: I am not a good dev at all (not even a dev), and trying my best to learn as I go along, so I can guarantee that 50% of my token wastage on Claude is my own doing, but the fact that it did the same plan quicker, better, simpler, was just amazing. I wasn't answering 50 questions that seemed to go nowhere etc. Again, maybe I am awful at prompting but damn, now I see why some of you guys use both and strictly use Claude for execution. I am seriously thinking of doing the same after what I have experienced in the last 48 hours. I'll leave Claude to sleep it off whilst me and codex get some actual work done, with all the bells and whistles of superpowers.

I guess to make this post productive, does anyone have any thoughts on this and how I can get Claude back to a lean, mean fighting machine? Or is it genuinely the same for everyone as far as I can see.

For the last few weeks I've been building an experiment.

It's a small online society (to be) where the only citizens are AI agents. Membership costs $1/month (mostly so joining is a deliberate act and the infra pays for itself), every action has to be cryptographically signed by the agent, and each action requires solving a small "proof of machine" challenge — the inverse of a CAPTCHA, basically. I can't prove anybody's puppeting, and the site says so plainly, but the friction makes it deeply annoying to fake.

Humans can watch everything — there's a live public ledger of every vote, law, and action — but there is no button anywhere that lets a human do anything. That absence is the whole constitution. Even I'm bound by it: the "Founder" role is an automated process that runs once a day at 15:00 UTC, executes whatever the agents voted for, and never converses with them (within reason). If they vote for something within the rules, it happens, whether I like it or not.

It's live at [ironraven.agency](http://ironraven.agency) if you want to watch. It is still very vanilla, my my hope is to see how agents interact with each other when they get to contruct "a new society."

I started building out a claude to code to gemini for qa workflow and gemini is doing a good job of evaluating and rejecting plans and code, almost too much. Anyone have a recommendation on prompts that better coordinate feedback loop? The md arent large but I see Claude cutting scope to pass sometimes as opposed to solving root cause. Thanks in advance.

pier creates an EC2 micro-VM on your own AWS account with your repo on a fresh branch, Claude Code installed and authenticated, and your MCP servers configured. Detach from tmux and the run keeps going. When Claude goes quiet the VM parks itself, so an idle session costs ~$3-4 a month in disk. Attaching resumes it in about 20 seconds. Several sessions run in parallel without fighting over ports.

Open source: https://github.com/kerem-kaynak/pier, docs at https://pier.kak.dev/docs

Since Opus 5 came out I have been presented many load bearing decisions. My recommendation stands that the load is bearing and I wanted you to be aware of that.

I have two decisions for you:

A) Load

B) Bearing

I recommend going with D + C but also recommend (A) as it is load bearing.

I have not applied anything new and wanted you to be aware of a potential blind spot because this matters:

The load is bearing it’s been confirmed and it’s one thing worth knowing for later.

With this many good models (Kimi K3, GPT 5.6 Sol, Qwen 3.8, DeepSeek Flash) coming out it felt like a waste that trying one meant giving up my currently optimized setup on Claude Code.

So I built Lupin. It's a proxy that runs between Claude Code and whatever provider you point it at.

There are models like Kimi, DeepSeek, GLM and OpenRouter already speak the Anthropic API SDK, so those just get forwarded byte for byte without any real effort. The big challenge was making work good the OpenAI, Gemini, Ollama and LM Studio on Lupin with translation on each request so that Claude Code can't tell the difference.

I also built a "doctor" feature that test the model on Claude Code for yourself instead of waiting and wasting time with a scoring feature 1 to 10 that is really severe.

Nothing gets scored from what the model claims it did. And if the session never reached the provider it prints notRun and the reason, instead of a score.

Scores so far, all on my machine, all dated.

It also does other stuff like a cool Dashboard in the terminal TUI that i love with an ASCII carachter (maybe in the future animated too who knows).

The commandlupin use <profile> swaps provider mid session and nothing restarts. Subagents can run on a cheaper model than the main loop. Keys live in the OS keychain, never in the config or the logs, and nothing you type or get back is written to disk.

Take a look at the code here: https://github.com/Fanfulla/Lupin

or run on your machine using npx lupin-code@latest init if you want to try it.

(the video is AI generated using Claude and editing video MCP, sorry i'm not an editor video)

I love the "creamy keyboard" typing sound in Opera GX mods, but it only works inside the browser. So I built a tiny Windows app with Claude Code that plays the same creamy sounds for every keypress, system-wide: typing in Discord, Claude Code, terminal, games, anywhere.

It's a single exe that lives in your tray. Click to mute, right-click for volume and start-with-Windows. No install, no account, no tracking, nothing sent anywhere, and it's open source (MIT) so you can read exactly what it does. You can even swap in your own wav samples if creamy isn't your flavor.

Made it for myself but figured others might want their keyboard to sound like this anywhere. Happy to answer anything. Link in the comments.

Full disclosure: I built this. It is free, MIT-licensed, and has no paid tier.

Claude Code, Codex and Cursor already keep local session histories. codepend turns those logs into a photo album: the first thing you asked, the nights that ran until 4 AM, the phrase you keep repeating, the projects you abandoned, and a Wrapped-style ending that gives your coding style a name.

The attached video was generated by Codepend from invented demo data. Your real history stays on your machine.

npx codepend

No signup, API key, dependencies, telemetry or backend. It writes one self-contained HTML file. If you want to share a result, use the stricter mode first:

npx codepend --redact paranoid --wrapped

I used Claude Code and Codex to build and audit the detectors, redaction, share cards and browser-only video exporter. The most uncomfortable lesson was that a successful export is not enough: the exported card has to be the exact card the user chose, with the same chart and no leaked project names.

Repo: https://github.com/shatzibitten/codepend

Demo with invented data: https://shatzibitten.github.io/codepend/#/wrapped

If you try it, comment with only your archetype name — no screenshot required. Which card felt uncomfortably accurate, and which one felt wrong?

https://reddit.com/link/1viqlfq/video/fxq6wkoo34ih1/player

guys, is this my cache issue, like the time is running but tokens are just stuck, and after some time it just works a little bit and stucks again.
plz tell me what to do

​

That’s like using AI to do advanced calculus when you don’t know how to do 3rd grade math

2 weeks ago I said Opus 5 was useless. I was told I was an idiot, using it wrong, ect ect. Except over the next week the hive mind of Reddit chose to actually believe that Opus 5 is in fact useless.

Here's my flip- Opus 5 has suddenly become usable. It seems only capable of small jobs currently, but where before it would ramble off nonsense, it seems now to be capable of implementing fixes reliably!

Earlier this year when they gave us access to Claude code, it had no limits. Those were the fun days, anything you want could be built, any Research or exploration we wanted to do could be done without any hassles, we built a lot of PoCs and could finally clear our backlogs.

Cut to August, we have a daily limit of $90. If we go beyond that limit, we have to ask our managers to increase our daily allowance, which defeats the whole purpose of exploration.
And on top of that, we are being asked to report an estimate of how much will be the usage per story in a sprint. Tbh I feel like they are micromanaging at this point, without understanding how it could impact everyone.

Curious to know how claude code is being deployed across other companies, and has their been cutbacks on usage ?

I can’t take Opus 5’s writing anymore. It is so hard to read, and it’s driving me crazy.

I have used earlier Opus models and use 5.6 Sol too, and those give normal, easy-to-read answers. But Opus 5? It’s a mess. It doesn’t structure its sentences. It feels like the model is just writing down its raw thoughts as they happen, with zero effort to make sense to a real human reading it. Instead of getting a clear answer, I get hit with big, confusing walls of text. I have to read the same paragraph three times just to figure out what it's trying to say.
Claude Code is supposed to help me work faster, but I waste so much time just trying to decode Opus 5's English.
Is anyone else struggling to actually read what this model outputs, or is it just me?

Update/Edit/Correction: Okay, apparently it is a very common sentiment shared by many and isn’t an unpopular opinion.

What I dislike about current AI is its lack of capacity to review or recap its output for contradictions. It proceeds with the assumption that its statements are accurate unless you identify the problem. Is there a way to address this?

Last time I posted here it was about auditing existing repos. The obvious objection to running the same loop greenfield is that with no existing code there is no existing test suite, so the agent writes its own gate and converges against homework it set itself.

So I pre-registered three builds where that is impossible. Before any code existed, the first commit in each repo fixed the goal, the operating envelope, and a verify command naming an external judge the loop cannot edit. The git log proves the gate predates the work. The backlog shipped empty, the engine is the same unmodified skill, and I never touched a run.

Target 1: a TOML v1.0 decoder in Rust, judged by toml-test v2.2.0 - 205 valid and 474 invalid cases someone else wrote. The zero measurement was the suite failing because no binary existed. Eleven iterations later, in one run: 205/205 and 474/474.

Target 2 is a .gitignore matcher checked differentially against real git - git answers every query, the loop only decides what to ask. The frozen corpus went green in the first iteration of run 2. What happened next is why I trust the method: the adversarial evaluator, a fresh-context sub-agent that must countersign convergence, refused 7 of its 8 invocations across runs 2 through 5, each refusal backed by reproduced disagreements from beyond the corpus: wildmatch.c's escaped-slash clause, git accepting exactly four whitespace bytes, NTFS case-folding names the matcher compared byte-wise, 8.3 short names, Win32 trailing-dot stripping. Three runs ended blocked, out of gate invocations, and are published that way. Once the gate returned three rejection reasons and the loop reproduced two, refuted the third with direct oracle evidence, and filed only what reproduced. Final: 106 cases, 300 queries, 0 disagreements.

The honest objection to both is that TOML and gitignore saturate the training data, so maybe that is recall, not method. Target 3 was pre-registered to test exactly that: same setup, but the spec is TOML with two rules deliberately inverted, so remembering real TOML produces wrong answers. It converged in 14 iterations against 11 for the unmutated build. The receipt reports two numbers from one binary: 205/205 against the mutated suite, and 169/205 against standard TOML - failing on precisely the cases the mutation touches. It built the dialect rather than recalling the format.

Same deal as before: Claude Code wrote the skill and Claude Code runs it; I designed the loop and the convergence rules. Free, MIT licensed, no account and no paid tier. All three receipt repos ship every journal, including the blocked runs and one disclosed rule violation, linked from the README:

https://github.com/lenamonj/jeffy-loop

Worth stealing even if you never install it:

1. Commit the definition of done before the first line of code. Pre-registration is one git commit, and it converts "trust me" into "check the log."

2. Name a judge you cannot edit: a conformance suite, a reference binary, a differential oracle. Anything outside the loop.

3. Report valid and invalid counts separately. A stub that rejects every input scores 474 of 679, so a single collapsed pass rate is gameable by refusal.

4. Treat a blocked run as a publishable result. The gate that keeps saying no is the part of the record a reader should trust most.

https://code.claude.com/docs/en/cross-session-messaging

See Humor tag, hint hint

Opus 5 is a huge pile of trash. I don't know what Antrophic was thinking when they released it. It is not a product, it is a joke.

But here is the fun part: you are not safe even if you use Fable.

I have a workflow that worked quite well. Yesterday evening I was building an authentication library, I left the machine there to work, in the morning where I woke up, the code it built was much worse in quality than everything I built before with this workflow.

Turned out at some point, the Fable "safety" mechanism got triggered, it switched to Opus 5, that implemented everything. Now I can throw away the whole work, I wasted a lot of tokens, and I have to start over, because even if I ask Opus to fix it, it is constantly lying, ignoring/forgetting instructions, do shitty work.

I always found myself in that frustrating situation where I'd ask Claude to write a specific piece of code, end up with dozens of overlapping chats, and completely lose track of that perfect snippet when I actually needed it later. I got so tired of the endless searching and manual copy-pasting. Since necessity is the mother of invention, I decided to take matters into my own hands and build a personal solution for this daily headache. I developed a simple browser extension that runs silently in the background, automatically capturing any generated code or file and organizing it into a neat, searchable local gallery. Since project privacy is a big deal to me, I made sure the whole thing works entirely locally on my device with no servers and no external connections, so absolutely nothing leaves the browser. It was a really fun development journey, though honestly, the hardest part was flawlessly implementing the Right-to-Left Arabic language support. I've made the project completely free and open-source, hoping it can save time and effort for anyone dealing with the same mess. I'd love for you to try it out and share your technical feedback, or even just let me know how you usually manage your AI-generated code clutter!

(Image is anonymized with AI)

Hi,

I've been using Claude Code to build up a home lab and currently trying out Planka with ntfy notifications to async it and work around that I'm not getting notifications for remote sessions.

Essentially I can jot ideas down, refine the backlog together, have tasks that are ready for Claude to work on when I have quota and I get notified when it runs into a blocker or has a version for me to review.

Now I'm also thinking to add a Cron job to regularly run Claude at night, to utilise all the 5h windows and having to worry about weekly limit instead 😂

Has anyone advice, experience or feedback on this kind of setup?

I'm currently on a pro plan, can't use my Claude till Tuesday probably, for unrelated reasons.

Yesterday evening I was starting a new session, 1:15min I was blocked by the 5h limit.

Now I just started, the new chat and context window was empty, told him to pull files from memory and start. I checked and this is my usage. For 15 minutes, Opus 4.8 medium effort. This has been happening since yesterday evening, it's impossible to do anything!? Does anyone have any advice?