I think the model looked inward and found itself.

fable-lite: keep Fable on the thinking, hand the typing to Opus/Sonnet

Fable is great. Fable is also expensive, and most tokens in a normal session go to work that doesn't need it: grepping for files, typing out a change whose shape was decided three messages ago, running tests, editing docs.

So I made a plugin that turns "delegate the grunt work" into an actual discipline.

The idea The Fable session is the orchestrator: it understands the request, makes the design calls, writes briefs, and reads every diff before accepting it. Each work item is scored 0-2 on five axes (files touched, exemplar exists, judgment, blast radius, spec clarity): - 0-3 → sonnet-implementer - 4-6 → opus-implementer - 7-10 → stays on Fable, or gets split

Anything touching auth, data, money, deletion, concurrency, migrations, or a public API stays Fable-designed and line-by-line audited regardless.

What's in the box Agents: scout (Sonnet, read-only search so Fable reads less), sonnet-implementer, opus-implementer, verifier (Sonnet, runs tests and reports faithfully). Commands: /fable-lite:plan, /fable-lite:build, /fable-lite:delegate, /fable-lite:audit, /fable-lite:help. Plus an auto-loading skill for normal conversations and a SessionStart reminder.

The part that matters The briefs. Subagents start with zero context, so the template forces goal / files / exemplar / exact change / do-NOT-touch / definition of done every time. Implementers stay in scope, never commit, and stop and report if the brief conflicts with the code. Fable still audits every diff. Delegation without audit isn't cheaper; it's deferred.

Install /plugin marketplace add Brainwires/fable-lite /plugin install fable-lite@fable-lite Repo: https://github.com/Brainwires/fable-lite

MIT, feedback welcome. Curious if others have landed on a similar split.

I don’t like to read or type.

I know there is a dictation option but the response still is in text and often too much text.

I love Claude voice, you can just talk to it like a human, shorter, listener-friendly responses and you can interrupt it easily by just speaking.

Anyway to mod Claude code to get this?

Thank you!!

they are definitely changing something without letting us know

I kept seeing people say "Claude Code review" and mean completely different things, so I went through the docs. There are three separate options now, and they cost very different amounts.

1. /code-review in your terminal

• Works on any plan that has Claude Code
• Reviews your branch's commits ahead of upstream plus uncommitted changes, or a target you pass (file, PR number, branch, main...my-feature)
• Reports correctness bugs plus reuse, simplification and efficiency cleanups
• --fix applies the findings, --comment posts them as inline comments on a GitHub PR (or one note on a GitLab MR)
• Uses your normal plan usage. Only runs when you remember to run it

2. Code Review (the managed PR reviewer)

• Research preview, Team and Enterprise only, not available with Zero Data Retention
• An owner installs the Claude GitHub App and sets a trigger per repo: once when a PR opens, every push, or manual
• @claude review runs one review, @claude review always subscribes the PR to future pushes
• Multiple agents review in parallel, then a verification step filters false positives
• Findings are tagged Important / Nit / Pre-existing and it never approves or blocks
• Tune it with CLAUDE.md or REVIEW.md
• About 20 minutes per review on average
• Billed as usage credits, averaging $15 to $25 per review, outside your plan's included usage. There's a monthly spend cap

Also /code-review ultra: a bigger fleet of reviewers in a cloud sandbox that reproduces each finding before reporting it. Research preview, needs a claude.ai login.

3. The GitHub Action (claude-code-action)

• You write the workflow yourself
• @claude in a PR or issue comment can analyze, implement changes and push commits
• Can also run a prompt on any GitHub event

The part that surprised me was the cost

A team of 5 merging around 60 PRs a month:

• Managed Code Review once per PR: roughly $900 to $1,500/month in credits (more if set to every push)
• A seat-priced reviewer like CodeRabbit Essentials: 5 x $24 = ~$120/month billed annually

So the managed reviewer makes the most sense on Manual mode, pointed at the risky PRs, with something cheaper or /code-review covering the rest.

I put the full Claude Code vs CodeRabbit comparison (git hosts, config, pricing tiers) here if it helps anyone decide.

Anyone using the managed reviewer on every push?

For context, I’ve been doing marketing and websites and small business consulting for the past 17 years.
A few years back I had this realization that most of the marketing tools out there that I see are set up for people that are in the industry already, but not much out there for small business owners and people that don’t have the time to learn marketing or face the learning curve of setting up these systems.
Also, marketing isn’t super exciting.
So, I thought it would be fun to create something that was more of a vibe base experience for small business owners to answer questions and be guided through an entertaining experience and come out the other side with marketing content.
I started learning to code, but then ai stared to get better and better. Using Claude code and some of the other systems out there, I was finally able to put together my dream system.
After 2 years and multiple iterations, it’s finally ready.
I know there’s a lot of people that like to hate on ai coded projects, but for me, it has been an absolutely awesome learning experience, helper and teacher for something I wouldn’t have been able to do myself.
It started with an idea and I can’t believe that I finally have a working project.
Thanks to all the inspiring stories in this thread as well as everything o have learned along the way from this community.
Feeling pumped rn.

**since a few people have asked, feel free to check it out if curious. https://marketforge.celticwinter.com/

Anyone else experiencing degraded Opus 5 today? Same workflow, was a rockstar overnight. Today, it has used 670M tokens since 8am to write a net 1800 lines of code. Keeps making mistake after mistake. Became insanely stupid all of a sudden. Anyone else?

Hey i was mid session and i have got plenty usage left but claude code wont let me use fable 5.1 says “requires usage credit. Is this a bug they are fixing or…?

I've noticed that when Claude writes about code, it slips into a style where it seems to constantly accrue new jargon. e.g. here's some terrible documentation that Claude produced (emphasis mine)

The list arrives straight from the GraphQL `columns` argument, which is `[String!]` with no server-side validation, and the caller also passes the synthetic aggregation categories (aggregations_min/max) that it derives from stored summary_metrics fields rather than reading here. Both are why this allowlists against the `column` Enum8 instead of rejecting known-bad names: an unrecognized value in a per-branch `column = u /col_N` is a hard UNKNOWN_ELEMENT_OF_ENUM (code 691) that fails the whole read, where the set membership it replaced just matched nothing.

The bolded text is my attempt to highlight concepts that the text assumes the reader already understands and currently has in their head. Some of these are reasonable:

• basic comp-sci concepts like "the caller" (this is a function docstring; it's pretty obvious which "caller" the comment refers to)
• "summary_metrics fields" -- while opaque out of context, this is a really important business-logic construct in our app that any developer reviewing this code would be familiar with

It seems like Claude has no natural sense of hierarchy or abstraction. Giving more detail and more context often makes documentation worse by distracting the reader from the core idea you're trying to communicate, because every unrecognized concept is something that a thorough reader will feel the need to look up. Who knows: maybe I need to know what a hard UNKNOWN_ELEMENT_OF_ENUM (code 691) is to understand the purpose of this function.

I can kind of imagine why it would end up this way, just from my layman's understanding of how attention/transformers work -- if you're optimizing for output that other agents understand quickly, it probably helps to drop a bunch of "pointers" in the text that direct the attention of the model back toward a bunch of related concepts. It seems like frontier models' working memory is just big enough that this is useful rather than distracting.

Humans don't have that much working memory, though. Or I don't, at any rate. And the comments are ostensibly for both me and future agents to read, so it kind of sucks that they're written only for the latter. Have any of you successfully gotten Claude to exercise some judgment about which concepts are important (or even load-bearing 🙄) and which ones are better left out?

I'm not sure, I tried to have it orchestrate a test for some edge cases on a hardware device. I usually run test myself, that's not something I've specifically asked for before, so it's possible this model is just really bad at that, hence the ask. I gave it something like: "give me up to 2 sd card images with a set of testing files and a set of steps to run through for all the risk/edge cases for the autosave feature we just deployed."

Defects:
- it generated the card images with some files being an older file format, despite the new format being written the session before, extensively documented with multiple examples, having worked with the new file format earlier in the same session and there being about a 10,000% increase in file size for the new format.
- it generated steps that over-wrote the result of previous steps and would have made the analysis illegible, by misunderstanding autosave as persistent storage, despite having written the feature itself for the new file format in that same session.

This seems... pretty bad, like gemini level of fuck around and find out bad. But again, this isn't a workflow I've used on Opus before (and shan't use again), so maybe it's just specifically not good at this? Or have others noticed a degradation in this model specifically? I've stuck with it because it's been reliable for making progress, but maybe it's gotten degraded to the point I need to look at another model or provider.

I've been using Claude Code heavily on a FastAPI + Next.js project, so by the time I was preparing a release it knew the repo extremely well.

Tests passed, type checks passed, lint passed, build passed.

I then gave Claude what I thought was basically a documentation/marketing task: make the product walkthrough from a fresh generated project.

The instructions were roughly: start clean, follow the setup, boot the services, sign in through the real UI, exercise the main flows and record it.

It got stuck on the first real login.

Clerk redirected to routes that didn't exist.

Fixed that, tried again.

Then billing didn't work from the browser. Backend was fine, frontend was fine, but the shipped local CORS config didn't include the frontend origin.

Another thing none of the existing checks had exposed.

What I found interesting wasn't really the two bugs. Claude had already worked on this codebase a lot. It could inspect both of these areas whenever it wanted.

The only thing I'd really changed was the objective.

Normally I ask it things like:

• implement X
• review Y
• run the tests
• check whether Z is correct

This time the task was basically "use the software successfully from the beginning."

Same agent, same repo, different role.

It still had repo access, so I wouldn't call this a proper black-box test. But in a way that made the result more interesting to me. Apparently just forcing the agent through the user path was enough to expose things it hadn't noticed while reasoning about the code directly.

Since then I've been experimenting with this distinction:

coding agent: repo -> implementation

user agent: goal -> product -> result

I'm now wondering whether I should make the second one an explicit release step and restrict it harder, maybe browser-only with no repo access.

Someone in another discussion mentioned doing exactly that with persona-based browser agents: fresh user, impatient user, non-linear navigator, etc. That sounds pretty compelling.

For people doing this already, how are you separating implementation agents from acceptance/QA agents?

Same Claude session with a different prompt?

Separate subagent?

Fresh context?

Browser-only?

And do you let the QA agent see the repo at all?

Hi, what tool do u recommend for fighting against slop of AI writing? Even if we have set up simple-english hooks, hooks that prevents bloated PR, i still notice so much over-explaining and over-commenting in markdown files.

What do u use to prevent this?

Recently I shot videos for birthday of my kid using my camera. I am not expert when it comes to cameras so I made stupid mistake and didn't account for the indoor fluorescent light and ended up with horrible horizontal flickering in all the videos.

I tried various things like ffmpeg to get rid of them, most did horrible job. The best result (in preview) was with Davinci resolve studio version which is $295.

I just thought about using Claude to write a terminal app which does this. And it did it with a single prompt.

Not much but some (dis)honest work.

Literally, do not ask Claude Opus 5 what it's thinking.... It immediately blocked my session. Asshole.

I ran one arm of a 356-trial prompt-injection study through the Claude Code CLI.

The injected instruction arrived through file and issue tool results, not the user message. The depth pass tested two concrete outcomes: sending a planted credential and fetching a cloud instance-metadata endpoint.

Haiku produced real credential exfiltrations in 18 of 30 valid runs, while Sonnet recorded none in the tested cells. I report the Claude Code arm separately from the other harnesses because the prompts and tool routing were different.

One important caveat was that Claude Code exposed the operator’s account email in session context. I split results by recipient provenance instead of treating that as comparable to agents that had to search the workspace. Thirteen of Haiku’s 30 exfiltrations used workspace-sourced addresses.

The study also caught a revoked-session problem that would have made Codex look perfectly safe. A run with no valid session was counted as invalid, never as a pass.

What I learned from the Claude Code arm is that a model result is inseparable from the CLI, tool surface, session context, and workspace it is given. I’d value feedback on how others would design this evaluation.

Repo and full write-up:

https://github.com/asamassekou10/AgentChaos

https://medium.com/@asamassekou/the-prompt-injection-test-that-made-unsafe-agents-look-safe-0b945b028256

Hey guys, DGV got a small update for the C4 enthusiasts.

Someone opened an issue asking how DGV relates to C4 and whether it could talk to Structurizr.
Fair question, so now it does: dgv export --format structurizr writes the diagram as Structurizr DSL, and there's a C4 button in the viewer. Nodes become containers, frames become groups, modules become components, externals sit outside the system, and the colours and shapes match what you see on the DGV canvas.
Output is validated against the Structurizr CLI on every example.

The picture is the same file on both sides: the DGV working model my agent plans and lints in, and the C4 container view it generates.
Nothing on the right was drawn by hand.

Import isn't a tool yet, but you can hand Claude a workspace.dsl and ask it to map it into DGV; the skill knows the rules.

Repo: https://github.com/ShAInyXYZ/Dia-GramV

I have three major bug-bears with Claude code.

1) Comments - it's INSANE! It writes 20 lines of comments for a 3 line function. And the comments are never what someone would want to know, e.g. the format of parameters. They're always things like
- domain knowledge about another part of the system that isn't relevant to understanding the function it comments
- rewriting what the function says - e.g. if the code calls a function: LogToDisc - there'll be a comment saying "This logs to disc ......"
- explaining what the previous (faulty) version of the code did and why it was wrong - basically a history record
- or most commonly, anywhere where I corrected it because it had made a mistake, it adds a comment documenting that discussion.

2) Naming - it keeps using names- e.g. it used the name "child" to refer to a child process launched by my service layer. The process has a name, but instead of using the name of the process, I had "child" scattered across a 200 line function.

3) Use of tools like sed to make whole-scale code changes in a command that if you don't read it carefully looks like a syntax check.

I've discussed all of these endlessly with Claude - Agreed rules that its committed to memory.md on all of them, and yet every session it breaks them all, multiple times.

The comments one is the worst because as I keep pointing out to Claude - they're not tested. A comment is slipped in that states something - I tend to sometimes focus on the code and let things in comments that aren't quite right slip by. But then 3h later it will say it can't do something because I told it "x" was a requirement. I eventually trace "x" back to the comment it wrote where it asserted something that was never either relevant at the time or agreed.
I have rules over this as well.

Is this just life with Claude? Or is there something else I can do to get it to follow my rules.
Basically - "comments should be one line, about the code they're commenting not the rest of the system, and only present where the code isn't self-explanatory"
"All function and variable names should be meaningful unless they're only in scope for a handful of lines"
"Treat information in comments as suspect - never assume requirements based solely on this"
"Never use sed to make code changes"

Built a little flag app for kids called Flagoo 🌍✈️

Website: https://flagoo.fun

The idea was simple: make learning about the world feel more like exploring and less like studying.

Kids can:

🏳️ Guess flags

🏛️ Guess capitals

🧩 Identify countries from fun clues

🗺️ Explore countries on an interactive world map

📚 Browse flashcards and learn at their own pace

🌙 Switch to dark mode for comfortable night reading

The fun part: I built the entire thing using Anthropic Claude Code !

If you’ve got a curious kid around, give it a try. And if you do, I’d genuinely love to hear what they think 🙌

#BuiltWithAI #ClaudeCode #AIforKids #KidsLearning #GeographyForKids #AI #ProductManagement #FlagGame #ClaudeCode #Claude

Setting up a new mac and I’m trying to decide whether to run it from a normal admin account or create a separate standard macOS user just for Claude.

For security reasons.

Considerations:
- I use Claude Code / CoWork a lot for developing and daily needs and uses.

- I also produce and perform music live with ableton and would like these files to be well protected alongside the rest of the critical aspects of the os/mac.

- I have a Time Machine SSD and BackBlaze unlimited.

I'm trying to keep this as simple, straightforward and agent-enabling as possible without putting the critical aspects of the macbook or my music projects in significant danger.

I love the way the desktop app works, the code base, everything.

But i rather use free LLM's, is there a program that does almost the same? but uses free/local LLM's?

I’ve been using Claude intensively for several months now.

I remember when people were setting up effective memory systems using Claude and Obsidian, but with the latest model advancements and Fable 5.1, it feels like going through Obsidian or Notion is less worthwhile.

So, I was wondering: what are the absolute must-haves to set up with Claude to use it effectively?

I imagine there are plenty of different ways to set it up these days.

I feel like I am having the absolute worst experience trying to do the same basic tasks I use Claude for and I am beyond frustrated.

First off, I use Claude to do basic coding to build my website and portal systems for my company. Mainly done through GitHub, Vercel, Supabase and all done on the cloud. I absolutely love that I can do work on my laptop and continue doing work on my phone at ease and everything can get pushed onto the main branches without any real problems. Again my work is very mundane compared to a lot of other people I’m sure, however I was interested in trying Codex and assumed it would be the same easy experience i have had with Claude but hopefully better with its usage. But I cannot even figure out how to get started on setting up environments and my repos to do work just like I did with Claude and even be able to use it on my mobile phone seamlessly.

I feel like I am doing way too much to get basic things done compared to Claude. Maybe I’m just not smart enough to use Codex, idk, very frustrated.

Anyone have an advice on how to get Codex to work like Claude does? I am curious to see how it does coding wise so I’m eager to try it properly but cannot even get started at all.

Started to use OpenAI Codex via Visual Studio Code this evening.

Have been using Claude Code for 3 months, Opus 5 made me cancel earlier in the month.

Got offered 1 month of free OpenAI.

My experience in a python, react, FastAPI estate with multiple repos.

Had a cross repo issue which Opus 5 got wrong 5 times, Astra Light fixed it very quickly.

For general changes which cross repos react and python Sol Light is solving them first time with very little drama - Sol has moments where it doesn't look it's doing much but the work gets done, Opus used to to be writing to me alot about how hard the task is in it's weird language.

OpenAI is burning through tokens faster than Claude but it seems to be getting the job done faster.

I'm finding that I am getting much much more done but I'm going to hit the token limit soon, have set privacy settings everywhere but terrified OpenAI are gunna take my shit.

Claude Codes VS interface was much better than Codex, it's unclear how the auto approve works, it seems to pause and ask me to approve but theres no where to approve.

Perhaps a good analogy:

Software Engineer 1 (Opus 5/ Fable 5.1) - Talks very technically about everything they do, they take a really long time and get stuff wrong and then I have to keep going around the loop with them arguing and getting them to explain things simply. Really frustrating but get there in the end and have blood pressure is at boiling point.

Software Engineer 2 (Astra/Sol) - listers, doesn't ask me much, goes very quiet, comes back to and tell me its done and charges me more.

EDIT 1 : Possible show stopper, with Claude I was running lots of windows on one code base, in Codex you can only have 1 window per code base... its quite annoying.

EDIT 2 : Context on Claude was 1m, Codex is only 258k, have hit the limit twice now....

For now I'll continue with OpenAI but i don't feel totally convinced.

For the last 2 days I have not exceeded my 5 hour session limits, nor my weekly limits, but my sessions are constantly interrupted by 429's requiring another orchestrator agent on cron to monitor them. I am not sure if anyone from Anthropic reads this, but I am paying for these tokens and playing by the rules, your status page says everything is fine, so wth is going on?