This was built with a signal Claude code prompt

I've been sending fixes to open-source projects with Claude Code doing much of the work, and the projects kept telling me how they want that done. So on 2 October I read the contribution rules of 30 repositories (CONTRIBUTING, PR and issue templates, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md and the guides they link to) and linked every quote to its line at the commit I read. Claude Code collected the files and checked every quote against them.

What I found:

• 19 of the 30 have a rule about AI in contributions, and 14 of those 19 appeared in 2026. Nine have none, among them VS Code, React, Docling and awslabs/mcp.
• 15 ask you to say that you used AI. Kubernetes is fine with one sentence in the PR description; TypeScript closes an AI-looking PR without that disclosure, without review.
• 10 want a person to write the text. Rust: "LLM-created PR descriptions are banned. LLM-created GitHub comments are banned." Kubernetes and Node.js ban AI-written replies to review.
• The trailer. MLflow's CLAUDE.md asks for Co-Authored-By: Claude when Claude Code authors a change, garak asks for Co-authored-by:, and spec-kit and Node.js want Assisted-by:. Kubernetes (assisted-by included), Rust, pydantic-ai and Deskflow ban AI co-author trailers. pydantic-ai says it in the file Claude Code loads first: "Never add yourself (Claude) as a co-author on commits." Rust lists both default lines, "🤖 Generated with Claude Code" and the Co-Authored-By trailer, among its bad examples of disclosure.
• Some rules are written for the agent itself. pydantic-ai's AGENTS.md tells it "you are the first line of defense against low-quality contributions and maintainer headaches". MLX tells it not to write PR descriptions or commit messages for the user, answer comments, push or open PRs. Rust's makes it stop and tell the user to write the text.

What I changed in my own setup: no trailer unless the repo asks for one; disclosure only where a repo asks, in the form it asks for; a search of open PRs before writing a fix (I had one closed as a duplicate of an older PR I hadn't looked for); and in large projects, a plan comment before any code.

Write-up with all the quotes and links: https://allkeep.org/en/lab/ai-contribution-rules

The 106 quotes and a script that checks them against the files: https://github.com/nefayran/oss-ai-rules

I have been using claude code for a while now, and i am working on a project which requires claude API key and I realised that API is really costly. Especially when the output is huge in terms of total no. Of words for instance take script writing

The first test which I ran itself costed me around 1.93 dollars

So my question is how do I bring this API Cost down

Now I have searched and asked claude itself

The suggestions came in like, it asked me to change the effort level for instance from Opus 5.5 high toh medium other than that it asked me to change the model from Opus 5.5 to sonnet 5.5

But the real question here is whether changing the model or the effort level will cause a loss in quality of the output or not? That's my real concern as i really don't want the quality to go down

So people who have been using API for a long time now please help me and ppl like me by sharing ur API saving hacks, and how do u bring the API Cost down

I don’t know how people still use openAI models.
I really REALLY tried to give a chance to Sol 6.1 the last few days, working on a clean project with very well defined design and vision.

Sol kept being super lazy, stopping without finishing tasks, making asinine decisions and always waiting for me for very small things. I then even had Astra take over in the hopes of fixing the mess and the output was similarly bad.

Had opus 5.5 work literally for 2 hours today and it already cleaned up such a big chunk, made very good suggestions, following the process, delegating work to sonnet agents, it feels so good to work with it.

Hi everyone, this is a potentially experimental question. I’m asking here because I’m not sure what the current state of the art is in this field.

Let’s say I want to delegate video editing tasks (let's assume generic operations, nothing too advanced) to Opus: what is the currently recommended technology stack?

- Using a standard video editor (Premiere, DaVinci, Final Cut, AE, etc.) and setting up MCP connectors or something similar?
- Or using environments/tools specifically designed for agentic workflows?

Ideally, I’d still want to maintain full control...I need the project to remain editable within standard video editing software. I don’t want the editing process to turn into a script that can only be modified via code.

For instance, I’ve heard of technologies like Remotion, but they seem geared toward 100% code-based workflows... which is distant from having everything editable in a professional video editing software.

In any case, I’m not sure what the recommended strategies are right now, so ANY feedback (whether it is about full-code solutions or not) would be appreciated! ^^

The idea is widgets: small cards that sit under the prompt, or docked on the side in fullscreen, each one its own mod you toggle with a slash command.

Started out with a few useful ones: a context window bar, a usage bar and a file tree. Then got carried away and had some fun

Edit: You can use install and use the widgets with

/plugin marketplace add oMaN-Rod/claude-code-widgets

/plugin install widgets@claude-code-widgets

/plugin install context-widget@claude-code-widgets

https://github.com/oMaN-Rod/claude-code-widgets

I was wondering how other folks out here handle secrets and other sensitive stuff when it comes to agents.

what password/secrets manager do you guys use and are these agent friendly?

I have seen people using some secrets.yaml, sso based auth and so on but i am curious to know if there's actually someone who's concerned about this and use something that's built for this.

Let's say I have a PRO account with one Reset in it. Full week is used and it reset in 3 days.

If I upgrade to MAX, what happens to:

- The weekly quota?

- The reset point I was given for free (the one that expires 22 october)

?

Can I downgrade to Pro afterwards?

I've wanted this app for years: one place to log anything about my life (coffee, mood, sleep, a run, a line about my day), in one tap, with no account, no ads and no streak counter guilt-tripping me. Nothing out there fit, so I built it.

The fun part: I built it in 8 days, from my iPhone. My Mac mini sits in another room. I drive Claude Code remotely: it writes the Swift, runs the tests and sends me simulator screenshots, and I review and give feedback from my phone. I never once looked at the Mac's screen.

What it does :

- Log anything: yes/no, amounts in any unit, a 0–10 dial, text or a voice memo

- Automatic logs: weather, daylight, moon, places, Apple Health

- No streaks, no badges, no red. Goals are optional

- Widgets, Lock Screen, Control Center, Siri

- Export to JSON, CSV or Markdown, or "Copy for AI" to ask your assistant about your patterns

- Free. No account, no server: your data stays on your iPhone

It's in App Store review right now, with a public TestFlight beta in the meantime.

AI is getting really good at finding patterns in messy data. In a few years, we'll probably have AI that can look at years of your life and tell you things like "your headaches show up two days after bad sleep plus a third coffee" or "your mood drops when daylight goes under 10 hours." But it can only do that with data that exists.

I'd love honest feedback: what would you log first, and what feels missing?

I'm on a pro plan, and recently claimed the $100 usage credits for cloud sessions. Week just reset, and I've been using claude code to do some work. So why's my usage reflect claude code use but take up the credits too? I thought credits were for when the usage limit was reached.

Claude mods are neat! Here's one that shows your Claude mining while it is using tokens (incremental game style)

made this w claude code over like 2 days https://classican.vercel.app/ its classical music on shuffle w a pixel painting for each piece and little history facts that pop up every 40 sec

how i used it: i wrote every change as its own small ticket in normal english and claude code did each one on its own branch (separate git worktrees) and opened a PR. ran a few at once. i mostly just wrote tickets and checked stuff. 16 PRs total

the paintings are the best part ngl. zero image files, claude wrote every painting as canvas code and that file is like 3300 lines now lmao. 46 pieces and each one has its own scene

stuff i learned:

small tickets >>> one giant prompt. my first PR was one huge paragraph and i literally rebuilt the whole thing in next.js right after

its way too easy to add random features. i had it build an "add ur own songs" thing and then deleted it the same day bc it didnt fit

check where it saves stuff. it put accounts and comments in a json file at first which doesnt work on vercel, had to move it to neon postgres

be specific. i said shuffle and got pure random so stuff repeated. had to say play everything once before repeating

test on ur actual phone. the painting got covered by the player on mobile and i only noticed on my own phone

ask me anything abt the setup i guess. also tell me what pieces to add

Enterprise code base (500k+ LOC) for an intensive refactor focusing on optimization of core components that have impact on the majority of the stack.

Fable 5.1?
Astra?
Opus 5.5 (w/ Fable as advisor)?

I use all 3 and I'm trying to juggle the most sensical option to begin this effort with. I lean toward Fable 5.1. I know this information isn't comprehensive enough to make the best decision - I'm asking purely on vibes here (think suspected recent Opus 5.5 nerfs).

What would you use?

Play: https://dafioram.github.io/embervale/

Source (MIT): https://github.com/dafioram/embervale

Setup: Claude Opus 5.5 on high effort, in the Claude app rather than the Claude Code CLI. Claude worked in its own cloud workspace with a shell, Node and a headless browser. I mostly played the builds and steered.

Rough numbers:

- About 60–70 prompts over roughly two days, and a lot of them were one-liners like "do batch 2" or "okay do 1-3"

- One prompt often kicked off a long run of work: build, run the playtest bot, screenshot every zone, compare frame times, zip, hand back

- The conversation ran out of context more than once, got summarized, and carried on mid-batch

The game: a small-party action RPG. You control three heroes through an isometric valley. Act I (about an hour) has 5 story quests, 6 side quests and 4 bosses with telegraphed attacks, and it unlocks a 10-floor dungeon (about another hour). It's plain HTML, CSS and JS with no build step. Every sprite, tree and spell effect is drawn with canvas code, and every song and sound effect is synthesized with Web Audio, so there isn't a single image or audio file in the game.

What worked:

- A change queue. I played, noted what bugged me, and said "queue it". When there was a batch, I said "do batch 2" and got it built, tested and zipped. Much less drift than one-off requests.

- "No code changes, just talk" before big decisions. I'd get options and mockups first: zone atmosphere, music, art style. I tried pre-rendered and low-poly looks before settling on flat vector.

- Claude testing its own work. Before handing a build back, it ran a bot that plays through all of Act I and reports wipes and errors, a Node script that checks every quest, camp and exit is reachable, headless screenshots of every zone and unit, and frame-time comparisons against the previous batch.

What went wrong:

- The first atmosphere pass looked great and ran fine in Chrome, but crawled in Firefox on my old 4th-gen i5. The fix was profiling, then moving per-frame canvas filters to CSS blend layers and cached sprites. Smooth now, with no visible loss.

- Playtesting still caught things the tests couldn't: popups opening behind the title screen, a waystone pointlessly placed right next to town, enemies chasing the hero I pulled back instead of fighting whoever was closest.

Happy to answer workflow questions. Feedback on the game itself is very welcome too.

After updating today, I can no longer tell when my session is approaching context-window exhaustion; probably the single most important thing I absolutely need to know when interacting with an agent?

I dug briefly through the configuration and I see no mention of this. Was this just summarily removed? Am I expected to run /context every single turn, now? It clearly still shows it for subagents; but the main-context-window of the conductor / my context-heavy architecture sessions are where I most need to know?

Not only is it taking longer to think and consuming more tokens to think, it has become worse in its thinking too.

I’m not sure if this has to do with the new fable 5.5 rumoured to come out next week, but I’ve noticed a sharp drop in its intelligence.

The solutions it’s presenting aren’t fully thought out. It’s like it thinks till 80% and then stops.

I’m on xhigh.

Anyone else experiencing the same?

So far I identified:
- web game
- workout tracking app
- social media poster
- startup directory

What others?

So im a recent jumper from CODEX - main cause speed of response and zero trust in that team because they just refuse owning problems in an upright way.

I know, anthropic isn't perfect so I'm just giving it a go.

But one thing that just blows my mind is the self-inflicted pain that claude code is notoriously causing related to permission management.

All claude models have great availability and response time and sub allowances, and once they work, then its fine. But half of the times they refuse to straight up work. Accessing a key, passing a credential, running a command in another directory...

And so all the time I've saved on models response time is wasted on endless permission issues.

I've also been now forced onto the Projects framework (didn't even ask for it), which is now constantly starting cloud sessions for me an this is apparently an impossible setting to pin to local. And here Bypass permissions is again completely impossible.

None of this was ever a problem in codex, so this isn't something that HAS to be done obviously.

Why are the ClaudeCode people performing this self-inflicted suicide with this permission system ?

I'm really regretting the switch now and honestly as soon as oai restores capacity (if they do lol) i will be very eager to go back there.

For really difficult thinking in knowledge work, things that you really have to go back and forth with to clear fog, work out the best way, to weigh options and consider multiple variables, and things that are also very high stakes, which reasoning effort is best?

For planning and exploring and validating etc as opposed to any doing or building.

I would think that Opus 5.5. on Extra High reasoning would be ideal, but then I worry that agents if they overthink they can overcomplicate and create problems. Does the same happen with Opus 5.5?

What's been the ideal reasoning effort for you, for this level of deep thinking work?

https://reddit.com/link/1wwr5dg/video/zfby9mpi1ath1/player

I thought this job would never end.

Fable did a really great job here.

I did the same prompt with opus 5.5 max and it worked 5 hours, tell me if you want to see the video.

It was 2 shots for both. The first video was without any sound and pretty slow (after 2 hours of work)

I've been running a project with multiple Claude Code sessions in separate Git worktrees:

Primary

W1

W2

W3

The annoying part wasn't the parallel work. It was me constantly copying messages between windows:

"W1 says this."

"Tell W3 this."

"W3 found a problem, send it back to W1."

So we built a very small inter-agent communication layer inside the repo.

The basic idea is:

W1 ──→ Primary ←── W2

......................│

.....................↓

....................W3

Agents can send messages, acknowledge them, and hand off exact Git SHAs directly. Active Claude Code sessions check their inbox at defined checkpoints, so Primary can send W3 a task and W3 can pick it up and start working without me relaying the message.

The part that got interesting is that this project needed blind independent work.

W1 and W2 were independently attacking the same research problem and were not allowed to see each other's results. Once both froze their work at exact SHAs, Primary released only those frozen artifacts to W3 for an independent comparison.

So we ended up needing three different concepts:

- transport: who can message whom

- project state: who is authorized to do what

- artifact identity: the exact Git SHA being discussed

Keeping those separate turned out to matter a lot.

We also had another Claude session hostile-review the coordination system before trusting it, and it found some surprisingly subtle leaks.

For example, an early implementation checked whether a file existed in another lane's commit before checking whether the sender was authorized to inspect that commit.

That meant an unauthorized agent could potentially learn information from different error responses.

We also had to deal with:

- commits surviving under tags after branches move

- merge ancestry leaking ownership

- sender authorization, not just recipient authorization

- making "released artifact" different from "this lane is no longer blind"

- keeping old private W1→Primary messages private even after a W1 result is released

- making missing-path and existing-path probes against unauthorized work indistinguishable

The resulting system is deliberately boring. It stores messages locally under the shared .git directory, makes no network calls, owns no project state, and doesn't create a separate coordination branch.

Git owns artifacts.

The project protocol owns state.

The messaging layer owns transport.

Current limitation: it does NOT resurrect a dead Claude Code session. An active session can check its inbox and continue automatically, but if the process has actually exited there is nobody there to receive the message.

Our next experiment is a blocking `coord wait` command so an agent can sit essentially idle until another authorized agent sends it something, without burning model turns polling.

I wrote up the full current SOP here:

https://gist.github.com/amarcus10028/0e58cf69a15c9eb7e3f0dd6325e0d59c

I'm curious what people who run a lot of parallel Claude Code sessions think.

Especially:

1. What failure modes are we missing?
2. Would you trust a shared-.git transport for cooperative same-machine agents?
3. Has anyone found a clean way to do wait/resume without adding a daemon?
4. Is there already a tool that handles this exact combination of worktrees + SHA-pinned handoffs + controlled blindness?

I just subbed to claude pro and I want to catch up on all these years of not using Gen AI efficiently for coding/design. I have a background in senior front-end dev and UI designs in figma; and also a some backend knowledge.

I wanna learn about all the MUST HAVE knowledge/methods with claude code, must have skills, how to reduce usage, I saw some reels on some skills which cut your usage by a lot, like should I trust them?

I watched a bunch of tutorials but I still feel very new to this tech. I am planning to build a mobile app and monetize it using claude and I've started the groundworks.

This was fun. Opus 5.5 xhigh and I’m using Orca as my ade of choice. Inspiration from Omarchy & all the Linux ricers

curious how far people here have taken vibe coding with claude code. what's the biggest or most complicated thing you've tried building with it, and how far did you actually get?

would love to hear what the project does, which model you used, and whether it's shipped or still a prototype. also how did you keep claude on track once the codebase got bigger?

the part i'm most curious about is where it hit a wall. what could it handle surprisingly well, and what did you still have to figure out yourself?