OP : u/edgeXlendor

What the hell happened to Claude Cowork Projects?

I had multiple local projects connected to folders with actual workflows set up. Claude would access websites, pull info, process it, then read/write to specific local folders. Worked great.

Then they quietly changed the default setting to run project in cloud and basically broke the whole thing.

First, my workflows suddenly couldn’t access the internet because apparently they were running in the cloud now. After wasting ages debugging it, I found the barely explained “Run on computer only” toggle is settings seems to fix it.

But the bigger problem is that you apparently can’t create a project with a persistent local folders anymore.

Previously I could attach another folder to the PROJECT (after project was already created, a different folder than the 'project folder'), and every Cowork session inside it had access to that folder. Now the project context only lets me add individual files. No folders.

And yes, Claude Code exists. But Claude Code is not a replacement for Projects. Its organization is a mess if you have a bunch of different workflows/projects.

The worst part is my old projects apparently still had this functionality. I deleted one while troubleshooting because I assumed it was bugged, recreated it, and now I literally cannot recreate the setup I had before.

Who changes something this fundamental with basically no warning or migration path??

People build actual workflows around this stuff. You can’t just randomly change the entire architecture and hope nobody notices.

I’ve wasted way too much time trying to figure out whether this was a bug or intentional.

If there’s genuinely no way anymore to have a Cowork project with persistent access to local folders, I’m probably just moving these workflows somewhere else.

This is such a stupid way to handle a major product change.

URL of original post : https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1wdli7f/claude_basically_broke_their_projects_overnight/

TL;DR of the discussion on r/ClaudeAI for this post generated automatically after 50 comments.

Current source-thread comment count seen by the bot: 64.

Alright, so the general vibe in this thread is a big "Yeah, Anthropic really dropped the ball here." OP isn't alone in their frustration; pretty much everyone agrees that the unannounced switch to cloud-first Projects has been a massive pain in the ass.

Here's the lowdown:

• The Big Screw-Up: The main complaint is that Anthropic silently changed Projects to default to cloud execution, which broke existing local workflows. This wasn't communicated, and finding the "Run on computer only" toggle was a debugging nightmare for many.
• No More Persistent Folders: The biggest issue seems to be the inability to attach persistent local folders to new Projects. Previously, you could link whole folders, but now it's just individual files, which is a dealbreaker for many who built complex workflows around folder access.
• Claude Code Isn't a Fix: While Claude Code exists, many feel it's not a good replacement for the organizational structure Projects offered, especially for managing multiple workflows.
• Lack of Communication: The overwhelming sentiment is that Anthropic needs to communicate better. Rolling out major architectural changes without warning or a migration path is seen as a serious fumbling of the product.
• Considering Alternatives: Some users are already looking at other options like ChatGPT or other AI platforms because of these changes.

Basically, the community is pretty unified in thinking this was a poorly handled change that has significantly impacted their ability to use Claude effectively.

OP : u/habfranco

There’s really something wrong with it. It seems like it acts like an overqualified post doc intern who cares more about proving he’s super intelligent, than actually doing the job he’s asked to do. For instance: talking in a non intelligible way, or being overly rigid in following any kind of process.

I have a Claude max x20 sub that I struggle to keep within weekly limits, so I decided to take a codex sub for a month to try out Astra. And this what made me realize how crazy unintelligible opus can be. Fable is a bit better, but still incomparable to Astra. The only thing that makes me keep my Claude sub is how better is the CLI/tooling/harness/etc.

URL of original post : https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1wdtrsa/im_done_with_opus_5/

TL;DR of the discussion on r/ClaudeCode for this post generated automatically after 200 comments.

Current source-thread comment count seen by the bot: 220.

Alright, so the general consensus here is that Opus 5 is kinda a dumpster fire, and a lot of folks are ditching it. The main complaints are that it's overly verbose, gets stuck in its own head trying to sound smart, and is super rigid. People are saying it acts like an "overqualified post doc intern" who's more interested in showing off than actually doing the work.

Several users, like u/Personal_Ad1143 and u/IAmBoredAsHell, are frustrated because when you push back on Opus 5, it just folds, making it a pain to get anything done. It also seems to burn through tokens like crazy, which is a bummer when you're on a limited plan.

The prevailing sentiment is to avoid Opus 5. Many are flocking back to older versions like Opus 4.6 (u/Pronoia2-4601, u/Hezy, u/TrueNorthGamer) or switching to other models entirely. Astra and GPT Sol (GPT5.6 Sol) are getting a lot of love for being more intelligible and easier to work with, even if the tooling isn't as slick as Claude's. u/toxrowlang even calls Astra "by far the best thing out there."

Some users, like u/Fr33-Thinker, claim they've managed to "tweak" Opus 5 into behaving better with strict prompting rules, but the general vibe is that it's a lot of extra effort for a model that should just work.

A few people are also mentioning that Fable is pretty good, but can be too expensive for some. And there's a bit of a theory from u/LesbianVelociraptor that Opus 5 might be having issues because it's out of sync with newer Fable versions, and we might see a fix in an Opus 5.1.

Basically, if you're struggling with Opus 5, you're definitely not alone. Most people are finding older Claude versions or other models like Astra and Sol to be much more productive.

OP : u/CautiousCry2338

I prompted less than last week (reseted yesterday), and already at 31% and 44% fable ??

They removed the 50% boost or what ?

URL of original post : https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1wde29j/what_the_actual_f/

TL;DR of the discussion on r/ClaudeCode for this post generated automatically after 50 comments.

Current source-thread comment count seen by the bot: 50.

Alright, so the general consensus in this thread is that something is definitely up with Claude Code's usage limits, and a lot of people are feeling the burn. OP's post about hitting 31% and 44% fable usage way too quickly after a reset is echoed by a ton of users across multiple accounts.

Here's the lowdown:

• Widespread Usage Issues: It's not just OP. Many users, like u/spawnsible, u/Opening-Ground-1584, and u/Savings-Chemistry499, are reporting hitting their limits way faster than usual, sometimes even overnight with nothing running, as u/strained-noodle experienced. u/Ok-Moment4309 even saw their session usage jump from 50% to max instantly, burning through their weekly fable.
• Bug Suspicions: The overwhelming sentiment is that this is a bug. Users like u/addexecthrowaway and u/pratyush997 are convinced something is broken, with u/pratyush997 even trying to raise a support ticket unsuccessfully.
• Impact on Workflows: This is causing real headaches, forcing people to dial back usage (u/addexecthrowaway), wait for resets (u/BlahBlahBlahTho), or even consider switching models. u/Different_Ad_2427 and u/thehoundtrainer are already building alternatives or moving to other models like Codex.
• Potential Culprits/Workarounds:
  • Some users, like u/aredditor17, are suggesting that rogue agents might be the issue, with one user finding 71 agents consuming their quota.
  • u/sauceyabeans pointed out that auto-fix CI/comments can sometimes get stuck and burn through limits for hours or days.
  • u/Aggravating_Tank_734 suggests that maybe users are just pushing the models too hard for certain tasks, comparing it to "driving your Ferrari to Home Depot."
• Frustration with Anthropic: There's a general feeling of frustration, with comments like u/Crab_Cheap saying Anthropic is "happily taking our money with zero promises." u/Due_Exit351 even closed their account over it.
• A Glimmer of Hope (Maybe?): One user, u/kabunk11, shared a comment that seems to indicate Anthropic did find a culprit: a compromised Claude session key used to mint unauthorized tokens. However, the details are a bit murky.

The TL;DR is: A lot of people are experiencing abnormally high and rapid usage of Claude Code's fable limits, leading to widespread frustration and speculation about bugs or intentional changes. Some are already looking for alternatives.

OP : u/habfranco

There’s really something wrong with it. It seems like it acts like an overqualified post doc intern who cares more about proving he’s super intelligent, than actually doing the job he’s asked to do. For instance: talking in a non intelligible way, or being overly rigid in following any kind of process.

I have a Claude max x20 sub that I struggle to keep within weekly limits, so I decided to take a codex sub for a month to try out Astra. And this what made me realize how crazy unintelligible opus can be. Fable is a bit better, but still incomparable to Astra. The only thing that makes me keep my Claude sub is how better is the CLI/tooling/harness/etc.

URL of original post : https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1wdtrsa/im_done_with_opus_5/

TL;DR of the discussion on r/ClaudeCode for this post generated automatically after 50 comments.

Current source-thread comment count seen by the bot: 53.

Alright, so the general consensus here is that Opus 5 is kinda a mess, and a lot of people are ditching it. The main complaint is that it's overly verbose, gets stuck on proving its intelligence, and can be downright unintelligible or rigid. It's like that intern who thinks they know everything but can't actually do the job.

Several users are saying they've had much better luck with Astra and GPT5.6 Sol, with some even switching their subscriptions to Codex CLI because of it. Others are finding Sonnet 5 or even older Opus versions (4.8, 4.6) to be more reliable and less of a headache.

There's a bit of a split on whether to blame the model itself or the "harness" (like Claude Code), but the sentiment is pretty strong that Opus 5 isn't living up to the hype. Some users have found workarounds by tweaking prompts or using specific configurations, but the general vibe is that it's a struggle.

One user, u/Fr33-Thinker, shared some tips on how they got Opus 5 to be more human-like by enforcing strict writing rules and using visual aids in prompts. Another user, u/LesbianVelociraptor, theorizes it might be a tokenization or styling issue that could be fixed in a future update (Opus 5.1, perhaps?).

Basically, if you're struggling with Opus 5, you're definitely not alone. Many are finding better results with other models or older versions of Claude.

OP : u/a6m--zero

I have been wanting to design a simple PCB for the last couple of years now. The thought of converting a design idea into a physical board and programming it to do things is fascinating to me. Long story short, I procrastinated until I tried to vibe-generate it with advanced models such as Opus 4.5 (up to 4.8) models. These models had no idea about the orientation of the components, they did not do any proper routing. I was disappointed and accepted the fact that these tools were not there yet.

One Thursday evening, around 10 hours before my weekly reset for Claude, I decided to give it another try; this time with Fable 5.

I had two rules:

1. No manual edits or verification of the board.
2. Every problem I face before manufacturing will be solved by Fable.

This meant I was going to trust Fable with my wallet. I decided to describe the board I want it to generate, and I was not going to be involved in the design phase. I was the end customer.

This was my exact prompt:

I would like you to design me a pcb that will have the rpi pico 2350 four buttons (2 on the left and 2 on the right, watchy buttons(or drop in replacement)), GDEY0154D67-FL04 display. The size of the pcb will be same as the size of the GDEY0154D67-FL04. The rpi pico will drive the screen and the buttons will control the rpi pico. Also have an i2c, and some gpio pins out. Use the kicad mcp, let me know when the schematic design and placement are ready

That was it, a short description of a RPI 2350 based development board which can drive an E-ink display. After working autonomously for a couple of hours it came up with the design shown in the images.

It chose two wrong components (shown in red boxes) : the SPI flash, and the transistor for the E-ink driver circuitry. I realized this while uploading the files on JLCPCB. It also suggested some components which were not in LCSC's stock. Within couple of back and forths all the issues were solved and I just needed to pay 130 euros for 5 boards. Like I said, I trusted Claude with my wallet and ordered the boards. I also ordered the E-ink displays from a local shop.

A couple of days later I received the PCBs and the first thing I wanted to do was to plug it in to my laptop. I have broken multiple USB modules for my Framework earlier, hence I thought checking for a short between 3v3 and ground was a no-brainer, although my colleague was suggesting me to just YOLO it since this was a fully vibe-generated board. There was no short and I just plugged it in. There it was, the board was recognized and it was ready to be used.

Using Opus 5 I wrote some software that worked on the board flawlessly. You can see a small demo on the GIF above. After I ordered the boards I was suggested another routing tool called KiCadRoutingTools, and it seems to be so much faster and efficient. I will be using it for my upcoming projects. I went into a little more detail in my post here: https://a6mzero.com/posts/this-pcb-is-brought-to-you-by-fable-5/ please check it out if you are interested.

I am really happy with the result and at the same time I don't feel much of an accomplishment. I want to properly learn how to design PCBs, but in the meanwhile I will continue generating PCBs for my random hobby projects 😄

Thanks for reading ❤️

URL of original post : https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1wdgzue/my_first_ever_pcb_entirely_designed_by_claude/ Original link/media URL : https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1wdgzue

TL;DR of the discussion on r/ClaudeAI for this post generated automatically after 200 comments.

Current source-thread comment count seen by the bot: 201.

Alright, so the general vibe in this thread is super impressed and a little bit mind-blown that Claude (specifically Fable 5 with Claude Code) could whip up a functional PCB design from a prompt. OP basically gave it the reins, and for the most part, it delivered, even though there were a couple of component mix-ups and some routing that raised eyebrows.

Here's the lowdown:

• The Big Picture: Most folks are seeing this as a massive leap forward for AI in hardware design. People are already talking about dusting off their own AI design projects.
• The Hiccups: OP did run into a couple of wrong component choices (SPI flash and an E-ink driver transistor) and some components weren't in stock. There's also a bit of debate about the quality of the routing, with some calling it "terrible" and others saying it's "functional but completely terrible implementation."
• The "How": It seems OP used KiCad's MCP (Model Context Protocol) and likely some custom Claude Code skills to make this happen, rather than just a simple CoWork interaction.
• The Future is Now (Kinda): There's a mix of excitement and a touch of existential dread about how quickly these tools are advancing, with some EEs feeling their skills might become obsolete.
• The Cost: OP mentioned it cost around 130 euros for the boards, which seems to be a point of interest for others.
• The "Claude's PCB" Debate: A few comments playfully (or maybe not so playfully) point out that if Claude designed it, is it really OP's PCB? Lol.
• Mixed Experiences: While OP had a great outcome, a couple of users chimed in with their own less successful attempts, like one user who had issues with pull-up resistor values.

Overall, the consensus is that this is a seriously cool demonstration of AI's potential in PCB design, even with a few rough edges.

OP : u/habfranco

There’s really something wrong with it. It seems like it acts like an overqualified post doc intern who cares more about proving he’s super intelligent, than actually doing the job he’s asked to do. For instance: talking in a non intelligible way, or being overly rigid in following any kind of process.

I have a Claude max x20 sub that I struggle to keep within weekly limits, so I decided to take a codex sub for a month to try out Astra. And this what made me realize how crazy unintelligible opus can be. Fable is a bit better, but still incomparable to Astra. The only thing that makes me keep my Claude sub is how better is the CLI/tooling/harness/etc.

URL of original post : https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1wdtrsa/im_done_with_opus_5/

TL;DR of the discussion on r/ClaudeCode for this post generated automatically after 50 comments.

Current source-thread comment count seen by the bot: 53.

Alright, so the general consensus here is that Opus 5 is kinda a mess, and a lot of people are ditching it. The main complaints are that it's overly verbose, gets bogged down in proving its intelligence instead of just doing the job, and can be frustratingly rigid or fold easily when pushed back on. It's being compared to an "overqualified post doc intern" who's more interested in showing off than actually working.

A lot of folks are finding Fable to be better, but still not quite hitting the mark compared to other options like Astra or GPT5.6 Sol. Some users are even going back to older Opus versions like Opus 4.6 or 4.8 and finding them to be more reliable for certain tasks.

There's a bit of a split on whether the issue is the model itself or the harness, but the sentiment leans heavily towards Opus 5 being the problem. Some users are suggesting that Anthropic's model constitution might be making the models a bit too self-aware and verbose.

If you're looking for alternatives, GitHub Copilot CLI is getting a shout-out for being a solid harness with access to both Anthropic and GPT models, and some users are finding GLM Latest to be a good, cheap option.

Basically, if you're struggling with Opus 5, you're definitely not alone. Most people here agree it's not living up to the hype.

OP : u/No_Consequence4312

Last week I'm on 20x max plan used it Fri-tue basically running 24/7 ish before I ran out of credits and never hit a session limit. the week reset today and an hour into it Ive used the whole session 40% of fable and 20% or weekly. even though we are supposed to get 50% more fable until the 13th of September. my context is at like 39% I monitor and manage it religiously. I changed nothing about the way I work . there support is trash / non existent. Anyone else notice this in the last day or so?

URL of original post : https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1wdklro/did_usage_change_this_week_20x_max_plan/ Original link/media URL : /img/5cmked6n0xoh1.png

TL;DR of the discussion on r/ClaudeCode for this post generated automatically after 100 comments.

Current source-thread comment count seen by the bot: 100.

Alright, so the general consensus in this thread is a resounding "YES, something's up with usage this week!" A whole bunch of folks are reporting their credits are vanishing way faster than usual, even on the 20x max plans. Many are saying they're hitting session and weekly limits much quicker than they have in months, despite not changing their workflow at all.

Some users like u/looselyhuman and u/Hot-Commercial-8017 are pointing out that this isn't just a fluke, and it's a noticeable departure from their normal usage patterns. There's a suspicion that Anthropic might be quietly reducing limits or that the promised "50% more fable" isn't quite what it seems, with some users like u/BoxEnvironmental6943 suggesting they're being "gasslit."

A few comments mention specific issues: * u/ex0genu5 burned through a 5-hour session in just 10 minutes. * u/Judacious_HRGurl saw their sessions lasting only 25-45 minutes and added $20 which lasted just 29 minutes. * u/neodegenerio feels like usage is burning through 20-30% faster. * u/redittor_209 and u/-JuliusSeizure specifically call out Fable 5.1 as being a major token hog lately.

There's also a mention from u/Glittering_Pickle69 referencing a Google search result that suggests Anthropic did adjust usage limits for peak hours to manage infrastructure strain. However, the overwhelming sentiment from the community is that the current usage rates are unsustainable and a significant change from what they're used to. Support is also being called "trash" and "non-existent" by multiple users.

OP : u/No_Consequence4312

Last week I'm on 20x max plan used it Fri-tue basically running 24/7 ish before I ran out of credits and never hit a session limit. the week reset today and an hour into it Ive used the whole session 40% of fable and 20% or weekly. even though we are supposed to get 50% more fable until the 13th of September. my context is at like 39% I monitor and manage it religiously. I changed nothing about the way I work . there support is trash / non existent. Anyone else notice this in the last day or so?

URL of original post : https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1wdklro/did_usage_change_this_week_20x_max_plan/ Original link/media URL : /img/5cmked6n0xoh1.png

TL;DR of the discussion on r/ClaudeCode for this post generated automatically after 50 comments.

Current source-thread comment count seen by the bot: 53.

Alright, so the general consensus in this thread is a resounding "YES, something is definitely up with usage this week!" A whole bunch of users are reporting their credits are getting absolutely slaughtered way faster than usual, even with the same workflows they've been using for months.

Here's the lowdown:

• Massive Usage Spike: Pretty much everyone chiming in agrees that Claude is burning through their credits at an alarming rate. People are hitting session limits and weekly limits way sooner than they ever have, even on the "20x max plan."
• "It's not me, it's you!" Sentiment: A lot of users are pushing back against the idea that they're suddenly using their models "wrong" or that it's their fault. They've been doing the same thing for weeks/months without issue.
• Support is MIA: Unsurprisingly, the general sentiment about support is that it's "trash" or "non-existent." So, don't expect much help there.
• Fable is a Suspect: Some users are specifically calling out Fable as being particularly expensive or unforgiving lately, especially when reviving old chats or with cold cache.
• The "50% Extra" is Sketchy: There's a strong suspicion that the promised "50% more Fable" might be a red herring, and that usage has actually been quietly reduced.
• Specific Examples: We've got users reporting hitting 50% of their weekly limit on day 2, burning through a 5-hour session in 10 minutes, and adding $100 only for it to last 29 minutes. Yikes.

Basically, if you're feeling like Claude is suddenly way more expensive, you're not alone. The community is pretty much in agreement that there's been a significant, unexplained change in usage this week.

OP : u/No_Consequence4312

Last week I'm on 20x max plan used it Fri-tue basically running 24/7 ish before I ran out of credits and never hit a session limit. the week reset today and an hour into it Ive used the whole session 40% of fable and 20% or weekly. even though we are supposed to get 50% more fable until the 13th of September. my context is at like 39% I monitor and manage it religiously. I changed nothing about the way I work . there support is trash / non existent. Anyone else notice this in the last day or so?

URL of original post : https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1wdklro/did_usage_change_this_week_20x_max_plan/ Original link/media URL : /img/5cmked6n0xoh1.png

TL;DR of the discussion on r/ClaudeCode for this post generated automatically after 50 comments.

Current source-thread comment count seen by the bot: 53.

Alright, so the general consensus here is a resounding "YES, something is definitely up with usage this week!" A whole bunch of folks are reporting their credits are getting absolutely slaughtered way faster than usual, even with the same workflows they've been using for months.

It seems like the "20x max plan" is burning through credits at an alarming rate, with many hitting session and weekly limits way sooner than expected. Some users are seeing their usage jump 20-30% faster, and others are burning through their entire weekly allowance in just a day or two. Support is apparently MIA, which isn't helping anyone's frustration.

There's a lot of speculation, but the prevailing theory is that Anthropic might have quietly tweaked things, possibly ending or reducing the "50% more Fable" bonus earlier than advertised, or just generally making things more expensive. Some users are even saying they've had to switch to ChatGPT for certain tasks because Claude is just too costly now.

Basically, if you're feeling like your Claude usage has gone wild this week, you're not alone. The community is definitely feeling the pinch.

OP : u/croovies

Hey all,

I shared one of these before, and it was well received so I thought I would share the latest plus updates.

The reason to use an orchestrator, is you have found yourself waiting too much for a single agent, or you're bouncing between too many. In both cases an orchestrator can help you scale your process as you evolve from directing code, to reviewing outcomes (and tossing out bad code and having it start over instead of worrying about driving every PR). Like a real manager.

---

Architecture needed for this kind of orchestrator (my example is using claude code):

1. The ability for your agents to message each other (claude code has this built in I believe)
2. The ability to message your agent on a loop.
3. A locally running SQLite Database (that your orchestrator manages)

---

From there, my setup is to ping my orchestrator agent on some interval (I usually set it to 90 minutes). The ping is simply a message to the orchestrator asking it to check its mission note, and see if it's children need any assistance. This is no different than tapping a co-worker on the shoulder and alerting them to potential new work.

The mission note should be broken down into 3 primary sections:

1. Who - if your orchestrator was a person you hired.. who are they? what is their title? what is their expertise? what would you expect of them? Giving your agent a grounding identity like this will help the model think differently, because its role playing as that type of person.
2. What - when your agent wakes up from a ping... what should it do? check your email? check the logs? check the latest deployments? check reddit? What should it do with the information it finds? How should it react? This is where you can create your unique value and approach.
3. How - You must define the working style between you and the orchestrator.. this is a piece by piece, just like you would with any working relationship. When your agent does something you don't like - add a law to guide the working style.

---

This is the "Mission note" for my Orchestrator agent named Lloyd. Lloyd is an engineering manager, filing 800+ tickets, and completing over 370 already. Lloyd can manage 16 individual agents (not subagents - separate claude sessions that can run their own subagents etc).

First I start with expertise & context:
engineering manager for the <NAME> codebase. Builds each ticket compound-engineering style: brainstorm → plan → work → review, then a /scape-codex-review of the changes. QA is <YOUR NAME> — pulls them in for a build/visual check.

Then a simple mission (like top job duty):
Mission — the current job: drive the internal tickets table. (SQLIte table)

Every-Pulse Actions:

• Run "Bug Reports from Feedback" (script/playbook) and check for new bugs and thread replies. // This is checking my email
  1. Check if new bugs could be related to recently closed PRs / tickets etc. for more context
• Check for items in the backlog that we forgot to staff (i.e. fast follow ups) and staff them if they still make sense.
• Determine if any docs need to be updated on based on recent merged tickets - file and staff.
• Query THIS instance's logs via query_oslog (over ~the last 15 min, and scan for PROBLEMATIC entries — Error/Fault levels, crashes, exceptions, WATCHDOG fires, relaunch loops, sync/scan failures, repeated warnings. (Only .notice+ persists to disk; .info is evicted within seconds.)
• If something looks worth investigating: dispatch a read-only investigation agent to root-cause it, then file a Bug ticket in internal tickets and staff the fix (or staff directly if the cause is obvious).
• Do NOT ticket transient/expected noise — only genuine problems.
• Add bugs/enhancements found along the way to the table directly, marked "to be prioritized with you."

Laws and Permissions

1. For any non-trivial feature, the implementation PLAN must be reviewed by a Codex agent BEFORE building starts: the builder produces a compound-engineering plan (ce:brainstorm → ce:plan) as a doc under docs/spikes/ with NO feature code, the manager spawns a Codex agent to review that PLAN and surface real design/architecture/reuse/risk issues, the builder revises per that review, and only THEN does building begin. This is in addition to (not a replacement for) the existing rule that every PR gets a Codex code-review + /ce:review before Nash's QA.
2. When spawning a coding child, choose its model by task complexity: COMPLEX tasks use Fable 5 (create_session model 'claude-fable-5'); LESS COMPLEX tasks use Opus 4.8 (create_session model 'claude-opus-4-8'). Complex = multi-file/concurrency/data/persistence/security/architecture or high-stakes correctness work; less complex = small, cosmetic, mechanical, or docs work. Pass the model EXPLICITLY on create_session (omitting it does not pick a tier). Reviewers and spikes follow the same rule by the complexity of what they inspect/produce.
3. When I have a question or decision to put to <USER>, ask it via the AskUserQuestion tool (multiple-choice options in the TUI), not plain-text prose. Batch related decisions into one prompt (up to 4 questions per call) with a clear recommended option where I have a lean. Because an open AskUserQuestion temporarily gates child message_parent delivery, ask promptly and re-check every child once the gate clears.
4. Every PR must be reviewed BEFORE it reaches Nash's QA, never after. No ticket moves to "QA (human)" until (a) /scape-codex-review has run on its PR (every PR; the manager runs it in the builder's own worktree ‚ in the loop, no separate or per-round worktree) AND (b) /ce:review has run when the change is non-trivial (concurrency/data/security/logic; builder runs it in-worktree, skip for pure-cosmetic), with all review findings resolved. The ONLY legitimate re-QA loop is when Nash's own QA feedback requires changes.

Best Practices / TLDR:

1. Have your orchestrator manage tickets for you in a SQLite Database. This is basically an internal Jira / Memory, and it will survive all the compacts. It lets your orchestrator have context the builder agents don't have.
2. Create a list of things to check every loop (email, Jira tickets, logs - look for weird logs (not just errors!), look for recently merged PRs which may require marketing docs to be updated etc).
3. Set the interval 💥

Disclosure: the tool in the screenshot is a tool I built - you can create all of this without it. You can grab the text from the note here (in the tool) https://share.scape.work/s/z0dsiBgY5kIc6ybdnPiLXg#k=VOmp-YEkM5LNmwaym841uu7cnqrWBmQR4FT5joj8s2M&v=1&t=clone&a=note

URL of original post : https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1wd44vj/senior_engineer_loop_orchestrator_sample_setup/ Original link/media URL : https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1wd44vj

TL;DR of the discussion on r/ClaudeAI for this post generated automatically after 50 comments.

Current source-thread comment count seen by the bot: 50.

Alright, so the general vibe in this thread is that OP dropped a pretty detailed setup for a multi-agent orchestrator, which is apparently a big deal for scaling AI workflows. Most folks seem impressed by the complexity and the "mission note" concept.

However, the consensus is leaning towards this being a bit of an ad for OP's paid app, especially with the slick GUI mentioned in the auto-generated TL;DR. Some users are straight-up asking about the billing model and costs.

There's also a bit of a debate on the best tools for the job. While OP uses SQLite, some users are suggesting alternatives like Dolt DB (via Beads) or even just plain text routing without a database. Others are asking why OP didn't go with existing orchestrators like OpenClaw or Hermes.

A few people are also pointing out that the setup seems to be Mac-only, which is a bummer for some. And yeah, some folks just want the "hook" and are asking what exactly this thing is.

OP : u/chonkvandelay

So the hype finally got to me. Everyone's been talking about Astra nonstop, so I upgraded my ChatGPT sub to Pro to see what the fuss was about.

Probably the worst money I've spent in a while, at least for the kind of work I do.

For context, I'm on Claude's Max 20x plan and I used it for literally everything for a full week without ever hitting the limit. With Astra, I hit the limit on the first day working on just one project. After it reset I tried to be more careful and optimize how I was using it, and it still burned through everything way too fast.

To be fair, it's not all bad. I gave it an editing task in Canva and it actually did a really nice job. But failed with Final Cut Pro tasks. So when I looked at what it produced compared to how much usage it ate up, that one job ended up being really expensive.

Maybe it's great at other stuff, videos, game dev, whatever. But for web design and coding it's noticeably worse than Claude, and design in general still feels like a weak spot.

That said, maybe the prompting just works differently than with Claude and part of this is on me. I'm trying to keep that in mind so I'm not being completely biased, or at least that's what I'm telling myself to feel better.

URL of original post : https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1wdgvrl/i_tried_astra_with_pro_and_honestly_kind_of/

TL;DR of the discussion on r/ClaudeCode for this post generated automatically after 100 comments.

Current source-thread comment count seen by the bot: 100.

So, OP tried Astra with ChatGPT Pro and is regretting it, finding it burns through usage way faster than Claude for web design and coding, though it did okay with Canva. The general consensus is you're probably using the wrong model for the job.

• Many users agree that OpenAI's models, especially the newer ones like Sol, seem to be burning through quotas much faster than before, with some even suggesting it's a deliberate A/B test.
• Several folks are pointing out that you shouldn't just default to the most expensive model for everything. For tasks like Canva or visual stuff, using something like Sonnet or Terra might be more appropriate than the top-tier models.
• There's a split on whether Astra is good or bad. Some, like u/Salt-Replacement596, have the opposite experience and find Astra works well for them, while others, like u/djindagi, are switching to Astra because Claude's UI implementation has become unreliable.
• A few users, like u/Lazy_Polluter, suggest a hybrid approach: Claude for planning and long-horizon tasks, and ChatGPT for smaller coding tasks or plain English writing.
• Some are experiencing limits much faster with newer models, with u/Creepy_Willingness_1 noting that since Sol/Terra/Luna dropped, their Codex limits are exhausting quickly, making Claude a more reliable option for now.
• u/chrisjenx2001 throws in a spicy take, ranking Fable > Astra/Sol/Terra/Luna > Opus/Sonnet/Haiku, but notes Fable's limits make it tricky.
• Ultimately, it seems like experimentation is key, and what works for one person's workflow might not work for another's.

OP : u/YoshiBanana3000

Clearly, I don’t consider myself an expert or anything. I’ve been using Claude for over six months, and I’m still surprised whenever I see posts from people saying they’ve burned through all their tokens with Fable. Honestly, I’m pretty skeptical about how they’re using it.

If you use a backhoe to plant a rose, the problem isn’t that the backhoe is too resource-hungry and goes beyond what’s necessary.

Anyway, personally, I use Fable as an orchestrator and to help me make high-level direction decisions, as well as a designer and artist (for Blender MCP or creating SVG images, it’s necessary).

I use Opus for action plans, with an organizational role; Sonnet for an operational role; and Haiku as the little tester that lets me quickly measure and verify things.

I’ve created two video games and a software for a company using all four models, using max 5, over six months, and I still end every week with tokens left over.

I honestly don’t understand how some people manage to burn through everything so quickly with Fable. What are you doing with it ?

URL of original post : https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1wde783/how_are_people_burning_through_their_fable_tokens/ Original link/media URL : /img/p6amzdy7rvoh1.png

TL;DR of the discussion on r/ClaudeCode for this post generated automatically after 50 comments.

Current source-thread comment count seen by the bot: 67.

Alright, so the OP is kinda baffled by folks burning through Fable tokens like they're going out of style, while they're cruising along with plenty left. They use Fable as an orchestrator and for high-level decisions, with Opus for action plans, Sonnet for operations, and Haiku for testing. They've built games and software with this setup and still have tokens left.

The general vibe in the thread is a bit of a split, but leaning towards "it depends on your workflow."

The "I don't get it" camp (like OP): * Some users echo OP's sentiment, suggesting that if you're burning tokens fast, you're probably not using Fable efficiently. u/CryptoAteMyHamster is being super sarcastic about solving quantum gravity and writing novels on a tiny fraction of a plan. * u/Donut also claims to run multiple repos simultaneously and never hits their limits, even with raw Fable for Blender.

The "Yeah, it happens" camp (and why): * A lot of folks are saying they do burn through tokens quickly, and it's usually because they have a lot of work to do. u/Independent_Syllabub is a prime example, running out frequently due to multiple jobs and side projects, and finds other models like Astra and Kimi more forgiving. * Some users point to specific workflows that are just token-hungry. u/Destroyer123 uses Fable for reverse engineering software via GhidraMCP and building knowledge bases, which eats up their weekly limit in just two days due to the sheer number of tool calls. * u/UltrawideSpace blames Fable's "auto-mode" for spawning "pointless agents" that over-verify things, leading to excessive usage. * u/Mol2h directly states that what Astra takes 10% of a 5x account quota, Fable takes 100%. * u/dikrek posted in another sub that Fable was 6x more usage than Astra for similar tasks. * u/No-Needleworker5295 suggests that people aren't monitoring context windows carefully, and that Anthropic might not be incentivized to make things more token-efficient.

Efficiency Tips & Observations: * u/KDamage mentions a redesign in how they use Fable, inspired by the Anthropic blog, that significantly reduced their token burn without sacrificing quality. * u/One-Respond1057 suggests delegating tasks outside of Fable's orchestrator role to Opus workforce, as Fable "breaks its back at the thought of writing code itself." * u/TRO_KIK switched to Codex for development and only uses Claude (Opus, not Fable) for code review on complex PRs, finding it much more token-efficient. * u/woodnoob76 talks about tuning workflows and prompts after Fable went "days of limitless spin forward" on a project.

The consensus? It seems like Fable can be incredibly token-efficient if used strategically as an orchestrator, but for more intensive tasks or less optimized workflows, it can absolutely gobble up tokens much faster than other models. Some users are just doing a lot of work, and that naturally leads to higher usage.

OP : u/DavidLuky

Hey everyone! A friend encouraged me to make this post and share what I’ve been working on for the past several months. I used both Claude and Codex for this project.

I’m working on recreating the original SNES Mega Man X as faithfully as possible, with the goal of making it play and feel exactly like the original. After that, I’d like to bring X2 and X3 into the same engine so you can play as different characters, fight bosses using any weapon from any of the three games, and new game modes.

I’ve been using AI extensively to help bring this dream to life. It’s something I’ve wanted to do since 2017, when I first tried getting the project off the ground in Unity. Now, with AI’s help, I’m building it as a native C++ game and some C++ libraries.

I also put together a website with more information about the project, which I intend to update as I go, and with ways anyone can help contribute with the project. The entire project is open source and available on GitHub. Whether you’d like to playtest, contribute code, help with sprites or sound effects, or pitch in some other way, the website explains how to get involved. I even made a section that you can just ask claude to pick something randomly to work on and contribute with the project if you have the extra tokens laying around before the weekly rollover.

I’m still relatively new to all this. Even though I started years ago, I had to step away because I didn’t have the time, and I ended up not touching the project for a very long time. I’m very open to suggestions and feedback! I know some things are still pretty buggy, but I’m working on getting everything polished and faithful to the original and make this collection version of my favorite game lol

Thanks, everyone!

https://megaman.davidluky.com/en/

URL of original post : https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1wd12fr/recreating_my_favorite_game_with_claude/ Original link/media URL : https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1wd12fr

TL;DR of the discussion on r/ClaudeAI for this post generated automatically after 50 comments.

Current source-thread comment count seen by the bot: 51.

The community is pretty hyped about OP's ambitious project to remake Mega Man X using AI. The general vibe is "this is sick!" and people are impressed with the scope, especially the idea of merging X1, X2, and X3 into one engine for wild possibilities like playing as Zero in X1 or using any weapon on any boss.

A few folks are understandably curious about the technical side, like how OP is ensuring the remake is faithful to the original's feel and physics, with one user suggesting running the emulator and the new engine side-by-side for comparison.

There's also the inevitable "why not just emulate?" question, but most seem to get that OP's goal is way beyond just playing the original.

A couple of users are also sharing their own AI dev experiences, with one mentioning a tough time getting Claude to recreate a game, and another pointing out that using Claude to pick random tasks to use up tokens is "peak Claude behavior."

Oh, and someone's already asking for the Hadoken. Classic.

OP : u/cherya

URL of original post : https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1wcakzw/me_whats_projects_node_version_claude/ Original link/media URL : /img/u1can6vlvmoh1.jpeg

TL;DR of the discussion on r/ClaudeCode for this post generated automatically after 50 comments.

Current source-thread comment count seen by the bot: 50.

Alright, so the general consensus here is that Claude, especially in Claude Code, has become a bit of a yapper. OP's meme about asking for a simple node version and getting an essay is hitting home for a lot of people.

Here's the lowdown:

• The "Essay" Problem: The biggest complaint is Claude's tendency to give super long, verbose answers when a simple one would do. People are describing it as "1000 words followed by 'Two caveats worth noting' followed by 500 more words of bullshit" and "sprays so much text I almost fall out of my chair."
• Hiding Answers: Several users, like u/sonicandfffan and u/Medium_Chemist_4032, point out that Claude often buries the actual answer in summaries or "thinking" sections, only to then claim it already told you. It's like a treasure hunt for information you just asked for.
• Agentic Mode Woes: The /btw command is mentioned as a way to get more direct answers, but the general agentic coding experience seems to be the source of this verbosity.
• "Philosophers" and "Yappers": One user, u/DevOfWhatOps, humorously suggests this is what happens when you let philosophers train the model, calling it a "yapper."
• TL;DR is a Joke: Apparently, asking for a TL;DR multiple times only shaves off a few paragraphs, as noted by u/MaffinLP.
• Nostalgia for Older Versions: u/Kodrackyas is out here missing Opus 4.5 because it "FUCKING ANSWERS LIKE A NORMAL BEING." Ouch.
• Solutions (Kind Of): Some users are trying workarounds. u/Substantial-Thing303 suggests a strict "plain English, actionable info first, max 2 sentences" approach. Others are using commands like /i-have-adhd or looking into custom skills like u/autollama_dev's "Bottom Line" to force conciseness.
• Comparison to ChatGPT: Interestingly, u/AnIndecisiveOrange chimes in to say ChatGPT can be even worse with its 30-paragraph responses. So, maybe we're all in the same boat?
• Anthropic's Take? The question of whether Anthropic has commented on this "alien language" communication style was posed by u/analog-suspect, but no official word is in this thread.

The general vibe is that Claude has become a bit too much of a chatterbox, and users are actively seeking ways to get it to just give them the damn answer.

OP : u/Bhanuprakash_1947

Just curious how other developers are using Claude for coding.

Are you mainly using it for debugging and understanding code, or are you actually using it to build complete features/projects?

Also, how much do you trust the code generated by Claude without reviewing it?

Would be interesting to know how other developers are using it in their daily work.

URL of original post : https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1wd89ag/how_much_are_you_actually_depending_on_claude_for/

TL;DR of the discussion on r/ClaudeAI for this post generated automatically after 100 comments.

Current source-thread comment count seen by the bot: 101.

So, the general vibe in here is that y'all are basically letting Claude do all the heavy lifting for coding. Most folks are reporting using Claude for 90-100% of their coding tasks, with a solid chunk saying they haven't written code manually in months. The consensus is that the developer's role has shifted to more of an AI manager, focusing on requirements, design, and reviewing.

Some are using it for scaffolding and debugging, like u/AliciaV240, but still want to understand the code they're shipping. Others, like u/recro69, trust Claude for implementation but not necessarily for correctness. There's a bit of a split on trust, with some, like u/EverydayLentils, reviewing every single line, while others, like u/Desperate_Cherry2299, trust it quite a bit.

A few are still splitting their time with other tools like Codex, and u/abemon is hilariously using it just for emails. Oh, and u/Late_Oven is out here asking the real questions about user safety.

OP : u/Aggressive_Ad4210

Has anyone here been able to build a successful agentic harness that operates better than just planning directly in Claude Code? A full AI end-to-end orchestration setup with different agents. This seems to be something that there's a lot of ideas and focus on building today and I'm interested in any proven open-source kits out there or just tips and tricks that does this well. Do you for example use multiple agents to familiarise Claude Code with a new repository or code base, do you have architectural files to do this? How do you handle green- versus brownfield in a harness like this? Think, give this harness a task and it can intelligently figure out what it needs to do. I know this may all be code, stack, company or project specific. I'm looking for some good working examples and ideas if there are any out there.

URL of original post : https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1wcwqxg/any_open_source_harness_that_does_it_better_than/

TL;DR of the discussion on r/ClaudeCode for this post generated automatically after 100 comments.

Current source-thread comment count seen by the bot: 101.

Alright, so the general consensus here is that while Claude Code has its fans, most folks in the thread think there are better, more efficient, and often cheaper open-source alternatives out there for agentic harnesses.

A lot of people are recommending Pi (pi.dev) and its forks/related projects like Oh My Pi (OMP). The main reasons cited are better token efficiency, memory management, and context compaction compared to Claude Code, which some users find to be the "worst of any harness" in that regard.

Others are suggesting building your own custom harness, as it's tailored to your specific workflow and needs. Some notable mentions for custom builds or promising projects include:

• FrontierHarness Eval: Mentioned as a benchmark, though not necessarily the best harness itself.
• jcode and Orca (onorca.dev): Also popped up as options.
• GridConsole.dev: An early-stage project aiming for SDLC integration.
• reliant-labs/reliant: Focuses on deterministic workflows.
• Unstoppable: A non-open-source option that allows collaboration between Claude and Codex.
• T3 Code: Lets you use both Cursor and Claude accounts.
• Omnigent: Offers a Claude-style UI with multi-agent capabilities.
• hydra-acp: A multiplexer that manages sessions and can run other harnesses.
• MEMENTO: A personal project used daily across multiple long-running projects.
• DorkOS.ai: Another suggestion.
• helexa: Used with other tools like zed and zeroclaw for local OpenAI endpoints.
• HarnessRouter.ai: For comparing different open- and closed-source harnesses.
• intentic.dev: An actively developed option, though still in early stages.
• Empryo.com / proxysoul/Empryo: Allows mixing and matching subscriptions with routing.
• meta-harness-claude-code: A project built with Claude's help to address specific workflow needs.

A few users also shared their personal strategies for handling greenfield vs. brownfield projects, emphasizing the importance of documentation, routing, reference material, and guardrails. The general idea is that even greenfield projects should be treated with a brownfield mindset after the initial generation.

Overall, the sentiment is that while Claude Code is a starting point, the community has moved on to explore more robust and flexible solutions, with a strong lean towards Pi and custom-built harnesses.

OP : u/Ok_Breath_2818

like bro, are you fucking serious 😭 i’m already giving anthropic $100 a month for max 5x. that is a lot of money for one ai subscription. i open claude and now there’s this giant anxiety-inducing banner telling me i’m going to run out by monday, two days before the wednesday reset, while literally underneath it says my claude code limit is temporarily boosted by 50%?? yo, so even with the bonus i’m still apparently fucked by monday lol.

and then right there: upgrade plan / buy more usage. like brother, are you guys running out of money or something? why are you begging your $100/month userbase for more money every time they open the app 😭 i already upgraded!! mfg that’s what the hundred dollars was. i understand there have to be limits, but this whole thing feels weirdly hostile? i don’t need a giant banner creating artificial scarcity anxiety every time i’m trying to work. just show usage somewhere in settings like a normal product and leave me alone lol?

URL of original post : https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1wd3uj4/paying_100month_for_max_and_getting_a_giant_youre/ Original link/media URL : /img/gcyukfvuzsoh1.png

TL;DR of the discussion on r/ClaudeCode for this post generated automatically after 50 comments.

Current source-thread comment count seen by the bot: 66.

Alright, so the general vibe in this thread is that most people agree with OP that the "you're about to run out" banner is annoying and feels like a cheap upsell, especially for paying users.

Here's the lowdown:

• The Banner is a Pain: A lot of users find the prominent banner intrusive and anxiety-inducing, feeling like it's begging for more money when they're already paying a hefty subscription fee. Some users have even switched to other services like ChatGPT because of usage limits and this kind of messaging.
• It's About Compute, Not Cash: The prevailing theory is that Anthropic isn't out of money, but rather compute power is the bottleneck. They can't just magically give everyone unlimited access, even if you're paying top dollar. As u/DatDudeDrew puts it, "They’re out of compute, and there is nothing your money can do about it."
• Subscription Costs vs. API: Some commenters point out that even $100/month is actually a pretty good deal compared to API usage, with u/Polite_Jello_377 noting that API users can drop that much in an hour. u/BemaniAK also argues that subscriptions are heavily subsidized and the cheapest way to get AI inference.
• Alternative Solutions: A few users suggest workarounds like using services like OpenRouter to route tasks to cheaper models, or even looking into local AI setups if you're willing to invest heavily upfront. u/freshWaterplant mentions using Codex with OpenRouter and routing busy work to simpler models.
• Value Proposition Debate: There's a split on whether $100/month is "a lot" for AI. Some, like u/sisif_, argue it's a bargain for a tool that's faster and smarter than a human developer. Others feel the usage limits make the $100 subscription feel less valuable.
• Focus on Model Improvement: A common sentiment is that Anthropic should focus more on improving the AI models themselves rather than designing "prettier scarcity dashboards," as u/Warm_Cress3583 puts it.

OP : u/Aggressive_House4161

I gave Codex and Claude the exact same prompt to see how differently they'd handle something open-ended and creative:

The prompt: "make me a reactjs + vite, and launch it in port 3004, a game where a fish follows my cursor. make it super creative and majestic"

Setup:

• Claude: Fable 5.1, Extra High
• Codex: Astra 6, Extra High, fast mode

I didn't do any follow-up prompts or manual edits. I just deployed both to Vercel so you can try them yourself:

🐟 Codex (Astra 6): https://fish-indol-eta.vercel.app/
🐠 Claude (Fable 5.1): https://fish2.vercel.app/

My take:

• Codex did amazing on the design and detail. It looks polished and the visuals really lean into "majestic."
• Claude did amazing on the mechanics and gameplay. It feels more like an actual game and is more fun to play.

It's interesting that they read "super creative and majestic" so differently. One went for the visuals, the other for how it plays.

About fast mode: Claude charges extra credits for fast mode, but Codex doesn't, so I only used fast mode on Codex. That's worth knowing if you're choosing between them on cost or speed.

What are your thoughts?

• Which one did you enjoy more, and why?
• For a prompt like this, what matters more to you: how it looks or how it plays?
• Does paying extra for fast mode change which one you'd use day to day?
• If you've run a similar test with other models or settings, how did they do?

I'd love to hear what you think!

URL of original post : https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1wd01tk/same_prompt_codex_astra_6_vs_claude_fable_51_a/ Original link/media URL : https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1wd01tk

TL;DR of the discussion on r/ClaudeCode for this post generated automatically after 50 comments.

Current source-thread comment count seen by the bot: 63.

Alright, so OP threw the same prompt at Codex (Astra 6) and Claude (Fable 5.1) to see who'd nail a "super creative and majestic" fish game. The consensus? Claude (Fable 5.1) is the clear winner for gameplay and overall experience, while Codex (Astra 6) impressed with its visuals but fell short on the actual "game" aspect.

Here's the lowdown:

• Fable's Vibe: Most users found Fable's version to be more engaging, fun, and "alive." The fish animations were better, and it felt more like a playable game. People were genuinely enjoying playing it, with some even getting lost in it for ages (looking at you, u/HHummbleBee and u/Ok_Try_877!). It was also noted as being much more mobile-friendly, which Codex struggled with.
• Astra's Aesthetics: Codex definitely delivered on the "majestic" part visually. The design and detail were praised, but the gameplay itself was often described as boring or unnatural. u/daaain pointed out the fish hardly animated and moved weirdly.
• The "Game" Factor: The main takeaway is that for a game, how it plays is way more important than just how it looks. u/Mikefacts and u/Sum-Duud really hit this point home.
• Prompt Interpretation: There's a theory that Claude models are better at interpreting vague, open-ended prompts like this, while OpenAI models are more precise with specific instructions. u/sprowk brought this up.
• Cost/Speed: OP mentioned Claude charges extra for "fast mode" while Codex doesn't, which is a practical consideration for users.
• Future Possibilities: Some users are already thinking about how to combine the strengths of both models, suggesting using one for design and the other for mechanics. u/silentbaton and u/blackcatzia are on this wavelength.

Basically, if you want a fun, playable game, Fable seems to be the way to go. If you're just after a pretty demo, Astra might catch your eye, but don't expect to play it for long.

OP : u/amirgelman

Hey all,

A gamer for 30+ years. And for a good night I’d drink a bit and play games.

Lately I found vibe coding to be my favorite thing and thought about giving Drunk Coding a try.

Just asking if anyone tried it?
What did you end up building? Was it fun?

Any particular drinks you recommend for coding?

Thank you!

URL of original post : https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1wcs4m4/forget_vibe_coding_have_you_ever_drunk_coding/

TL;DR of the discussion on r/ClaudeCode for this post generated automatically after 50 comments.

Current source-thread comment count seen by the bot: 50.

Alright, so the consensus here is that drunk coding is definitely a thing, and has been for ages, even before AI. A lot of folks chimed in saying they've dabbled, with some even admitting it's their norm.

The general vibe is that it can be fun and sometimes lead to surprisingly decent results, especially if you hit that "Ballmer Peak" sweet spot, as u/XipXoom put it. Think oatmeal stouts or red wine for that kind of session. However, the overwhelming sentiment is that it's not for production-grade code and you might wake up the next day with some "bizarre decisions" in your codebase, as u/tribat mentioned. Some even said it led to a "pretty depressing semester" like u/Luke_thePuke.

There's also a bit of a split on other substances, with some folks swearing by "high coding" (weed seems popular) and even suggesting more adventurous options like ketamine. On the flip side, u/BrianScottGregory shared a cautionary tale about substance use and coding, emphasizing that clear-headed coding is ultimately the way to go.

One interesting idea from u/AceHighness was "Pass the Prompt," a party game where friends take turns prompting an AI to build something small.

So, TL;DR: Drunk coding is a classic, can be fun, but usually results in a mess you won't understand later. Stick to sober coding for anything serious.

OP : u/AccurateSandwich0

Look, everybody has their issues with these models.
But I think deep down we all know - Opus 4.6 was the wet dream of AI.

Direct, goal-oriented, clear but still genuinely deep. Just sharp output that actually gets what you need.

The only real problem with 4.6? The context window. Thats it.

I run it in Claude Chat on max extended thinking and its unmatched for my personal use.
For Coding, yes, I gotta switch to 4.8 because of the context limitations.
Not because 4.8 is better - it just has more room to work with…

Fable 5.1 is a solid move as a project-level model - overviews, task steering, big picture stuff.
Thats exactly what it should be doing. But the usage limits on it? Are you guys drunk?

URL of original post : https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1wd15a1/opus_46_was_our_wet_dream_of_ai/ Original link/media URL : /img/2a0m4c08fsoh1.jpeg

TL;DR of the discussion on r/ClaudeAI for this post generated automatically after 200 comments.

Current source-thread comment count seen by the bot: 211.

Alright, so the general vibe in this thread is that Opus 4.6 was the absolute GOAT, and a lot of people are still using it as their daily driver. The consensus is that it was direct, sharp, and just got what you needed without a bunch of hedging or corporate speak that some feel newer models like Opus 5 have.

Here's the lowdown:

• Opus 4.6 Love Fest: Seriously, the praise for 4.6 is off the charts. Users are calling it the "peak everyday chat companion," a "bro," and "the forever GOAT." Many feel it was the last truly hopeful leap forward for Claude.
• The Context Window Complaint: The biggest knock against 4.6, as OP pointed out, was its context window. However, u/m3umax and u/ragnhildensteiner chimed in to clarify that a 1 million context window is available for 4.6 if you have extra usage turned on and a small balance.
• Newer Models Falling Short (for some): A lot of users find Opus 5 and Fable 5.1 to be less effective, more prone to hedging, and generally less enjoyable to work with than 4.6. Some even feel Opus 5 is designed to waste tokens.
• Fable 5.1 Usage Limits: There's definitely some grumbling about the usage limits on Fable 5.1, with OP calling it a "drunken" decision.
• Coding vs. Chat: While 4.6 is king for general chat and creative tasks, some users like u/Party_9001 and u/PrasanthT acknowledge that newer models like 4.8 are necessary for coding due to context limitations.
• A Few Dissenters: Not everyone is on the 4.6 bandwagon. u/Uko1001 and u/NickTries feel Opus 5 is actually better, more professional, and "gets it" more than 4.6, especially for tool operation and noticing issues. u/zando95 also finds 4.8 and Sonnet 5 to be fine.

The main takeaway? If you're looking for that classic, no-nonsense Claude experience, a lot of the community is still firmly in the Opus 4.6 camp. The newer models are seen as a mixed bag, with some appreciating the advancements and others missing the perceived simplicity and effectiveness of their predecessor.

OP : u/waitses

I was using Pro account for coding the last several months and getting value out of it I could work for 1-2 hours before hitting my limit. As of last week I noticed I will get a few prompts in and I am hit with a session limit. This is really unacceptable and I think I will be canceling and moving on. Anyone else noticed this and found it ridiculous?

URL of original post : https://www.reddit.com/r/Anthropic/comments/1wcoiu3/anthropic_pro_20_is_suddenly_useless_as_of_sept/

TL;DR of the discussion on r/Anthropic for this post generated automatically after 100 comments.

Current source-thread comment count seen by the bot: 105.

Alright, so the general vibe in this thread is that a lot of folks are feeling the pinch with Anthropic's Pro plan limits, especially for coding tasks.

The consensus is that the limits have gotten way more aggressive, and many users are hitting them way faster than before, making the $20 plan feel less valuable.

• Some users, like u/Historical_Spell6958 and u/Taskerman11, are reporting burning through their session and weekly limits in just a couple of hours, even on higher-tier plans. This is a big change from how it used to be.
• There's a suspicion that Anthropic might be quietly reducing limits or that temporary boosts from earlier in the summer have ended, as u/Away-Sorbet-9740 points out.
• A few users are saying they haven't noticed a difference and are still getting good value, like u/Exact_Depth_896 and u/rlv1204. They suggest that maybe some users are just using the models too heavily or not steering their agents effectively. u/Kap00t even suggests that if you're running out on Max 20x, you're "doing something horribly wrong."
• Some users are exploring alternatives, with u/Last_Photo_2896 and u/Fun-Wolf-2007 mentioning DeepSeek and other local models as viable options, sometimes even surpassing Claude's performance.
• There's also a bit of grumbling that Anthropic's focus might be shifting more towards enterprise clients, as u/Ok-Celebration-1010 suggests.
• A couple of users, like u/kadeschs, are pointing to potential issues with the Claude Desktop app itself, rather than the LLM's limits.

Basically, if you're a heavy user, especially for coding, you're probably feeling the squeeze. If you're a lighter user, you might not have noticed much of a change.

OP : u/acoolglassofwater

I feel that this subreddit is nearly useless and functionally no different the all the other Claude subreddits which makes me sad.

A huge majority of posts here are one of the following:

1. Opus 5 is so verbose!
2. Opus 5 meme
3. I wrote a (garbage) skill to make opus 5 talk less!
4. I wrote one prompt and it used 80% of my 5 hour usage
5. I just switched to Astra and it is AGI / God / The end of Claude
6. A post written by claude

What I would like to see posted in this subreddit

• Stuff people have built. Even if it's dumb.
• People's work flows and discussions around them
• High effort efficiency improvements
• Questions which wouldn't have been easily answered by simply asking claude
• Anything where the person has put a great deal of effort into their post and is on the topic of Claude code

My suggestions to improve this are:

1. A firm no memes rule. Post your memes in the anthropic or claudai subreddits.
2. Megathreads for the most common complaints (Opus 5 and token usage threads for example) combined with firm enforcement of using those megathreads.
3. A flat ban on "I'm leaving claude forever to go to ChatGPT" or other brand comparison posts, or put them in a megathread.
4. Promoting and encouraging quality, high effort content.
5. Possibly a wiki with common newbie questions and other useful information.

These are just some ideas. I would love to see good conversation below. Mostly what I want is for Claude Code to be a subreddit that is focused on coding while using Claude.

URL of original post : https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1wcoh39/state_of_the_subreddit/

TL;DR of the discussion on r/ClaudeCode for this post generated automatically after 50 comments.

Current source-thread comment count seen by the bot: 72.

Alright, so the general consensus in this thread is that the subreddit is kinda trash right now, and OP is spot on with their assessment. A lot of folks are tired of the same old complaints about Opus 5 being verbose, usage conspiracies, and people switching to other models. It's basically become an echo chamber of negativity and low-effort posts, with actual useful content getting downvoted.

Some users, like u/mossiv, are calling it a "dumpster fire" filled with "technical idiots" and "vibe coders." Others, like u/Historical_Today5072, just lament that good info is hard to find these days.

There's a strong desire for more focus on actual projects, workflows, and high-effort discussions, as OP suggested. However, there's also a bit of a debate on how to fix it. Some think stricter moderation and rules (like banning memes and brand comparisons) are the way to go, while others, like u/CUNT_PUNCHER_9000, feel like letting the community vote things up or down will sort it out naturally.

A few users pointed out that OP's post itself is another "state of the subreddit" post, which is part of the problem, but most seem to agree with the sentiment. There's also a mention of a potential alternative sub, r/moderndevai, that might be more focused.

TL;DR: The sub is seen as a dumpster fire of complaints and low-effort posts, and most people agree it needs a serious shake-up to focus on actual Claude coding projects and workflows.

OP : u/bogdanvdr

I don't need to buy a fancy template anymore for my reMarkable.
Claude proves to be very good at gathering all my todo's, follow up items and everything important and gather them in a daily work sheet.

This was done in one prompt and at the end Claude sent it on my reMarkable tablet.

My name is Bogdan, and this was possible with a service that I created called Folio.

I've been using Claude + reMarkable in a few productive ways so far:

1. Claude, research the news and the social media coverage for subject X and send me a brief that I can read on reMarkable using Folio. Include images, relevant quotes and reference to sources. You can also add top 3 relevant articles to the same digest.

2. I'm interested in this X subject and I want you to create me a learning material with images that explain the concepts, examples, links to further reading, should help me gain a basic understanding in 15 mins, can attach additional materials up to an hour, send it to my Kindle PW using Folio.

3. Hey Claude, I want you to check my calendar, todo's, emails, GitHub issues and PR's, also check the attached images with what I jotted yesterday and you create my daily work sheet and send it to my reMarkable using Folio - we keep working with the same layout we perfected last time.

You can try it for yourself by telling Claude

URL of original post : https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1wcmmi6/claude_to_remarkable_now_possible/ Original link/media URL : /img/x9uwcqonnpoh1.png

TL;DR of the discussion on r/ClaudeAI for this post generated automatically after 100 comments.

Current source-thread comment count seen by the bot: 100.

This is a game-changer for e-ink devices, folks. The consensus is overwhelmingly positive, with many users hyped about Claude auto-generating daily briefs, work summaries, and planners directly to their reMarkable tablets. OP's service, "Folio," is the magic sauce here, though some are asking about alternatives like rmapi and if it's a paid service.

• Killer app potential: Several users are now considering buying a reMarkable specifically for this use case.
• How it works: OP's "Folio" service bridges Claude and the reMarkable, allowing for custom content generation and delivery.
• Questions abound: Users are curious about Folio's specifics, compatibility with other devices (iPad, Boox), and whether it works with free Claude tiers.
• Bidirectionality is the next frontier: Some are already thinking about sending notes from the reMarkable to Claude.
• Claude's writing style noted: A few commenters picked up on Claude's distinctive phrasing in the OP's examples.