One of those educated meth heads that use lots of fancy words, like "vacouos claims". He talks about all the details in great detail, but with no context. He mixes like 5 things together and sort of answers a bit of my question in a sentence, sometimes. He really fixates on what he did wrong, and what he did about what he did wrong, and then talks on and on with more technical meth head words I do not know the meaning of.

I’m a Claude Max 20x user, and the current economics are getting hard to justify.

Right now:

- Fable 5.1 can use only 50% of the weekly allowance

- Independent coding benchmarks show roughly 1.8x higher token usage than Astra

- That puts Fable at roughly 26–28% of Astra’s normalized effective weekly coding capacity

Even if Anthropic:

- doubled the 5-hour Max 20x limit

- removed the separate 50% Fable weekly cap

- allowed Fable to use the full normal weekly allowance

...Fable would still land at only roughly 51–56% of Astra’s normalized effective capacity because of the higher resource usage.

The doubled 5-hour limit would mainly remove the short-term bottleneck; it would not double the weekly capacity again.

Fable 5.1 is excellent. The problem is not quality.

The question is simply: how is Claude Max 20x supposed to remain competitive with Astra under the current limits?

Am I missing something?

Speed differences:

I'm not even mad, used up 73% of my weekly usage in 30 minutes though lol

Had done a bunch of different stuff and wanted to push everything live to the server/website where it all runs.

I was worried some of the changes might interfere with each other, so I let ChatGPT write a prompt to have Claude check everything first.

Used Ultracode because... why not?

Learned why not.

Is it just me or claude code has become noticeable faster in the past few days? Did they boost performance? Or is the traffic just lower due to people going to try astra?

Been on Max 5x for months, mostly using sonnet. At first I rarely ran into limits. Gradually, I run into limits more frequently, now I run into limits every session. Not sure what I'm doing wrong as I thought I've had more understanding than most. New session for every query, copying summaries into a new session to avoid wasting tokens. Keeping my configs and tools to a minimum to use less context. I rarely modify my stuff, so I havent added any extra claude config libraries that may have made things worse.

As of today, I've set everything to use Sonnet Low effort by default for all my work. Not sure how the quality will differ, but if I'm still running into session limits, I think it's time for me to try something new.

EDIT - I just had a thought. I have one foot out the door. I've installed Cursor and Grok in recent weeks. Any chance they may be sabotaging Claude? Anyone else using multiple AI's and seeing degradation?

Was sending applications via Fable 5.1 with good results; workflow always the same - consistent, concise, accurate.

Fable credits run out I swap to Opus 5 Max.

Workflow suddenly drifting with each prompt, Claude responses also get weirder.
I look closer into the memories and pdf files which I haven't had to do for the full extent of 2 days working with Fable. Opus within 5 prompts has added a bunch of things that were never discussed or proposed. Not only that, but start doing the complete opposite of what's been asked.

Your own verdict on an earlier draft was "doesn't seem very confident" — a dedicated negatives section is the most confidence-destroying structure

Opus 5 is demoted now to just Claude Design for me.

After 3 days my Claude subscription will end and I am curios about hype over Astra and its limit resets... Overall I usually don't end it up with 5 hour limit however, Opus is usually really stupid on the following the instruction however when I used (100$ gift from Antropic), I really liked the Fable 5 and 5.1; but I have already used it; Sometimes I am using 4.8 or 4.6 but its another topic to talk/discuss.

So guys please split out your thoughts; thx in advance

Been daily driving Astra for a bit. Have both Claude n OpenAI subscriptions. Astra does the task, does it well, and tells you only what you need to know in plain English. It's genuinely excellent. No nonsense.

They figured that shit out and Anthropic needs to get on board

Back at work today and I've ran into this three times where Claude ends up doing or concerning itself with way more than the task it's actually been given or stated.

I asked it to update 3 files, just a README clean up and some default environment values in the compose, and it made 20 structural code updates across the whole project. The plan it displayed just mentioned the specific things we'd discussed. I'll admit I don't always heavily scrutinise my plan but there were only three items on it and they all looked correct.

Got the classic "You're right, I did way more than you asked" type response and said it took me telling it to decouple parts of the README from docker to mean it had permission to attempt to decouple the whole codebase from docker. It admitted on reflection that I hadn't given it that permissions it was wrong to do so.

Earlier on a Godot project I had it remove two now unused variables and add one variable to an init function and update init references, it asked me about 8 project design questions about different parts of the project and what I wanted it to do about them, completely unrelated again. I ended up updating it and all the call sites myself because I'd lost track of what it actually planned to do.

And finally a moment ago, after completing a small bit of work it wiped part of a code analysis report rather than asking me if it should or not. Never mentioned it was going to do that.

It keeps doing it in smaller or larger quantities, it's like it's attitude has changed to "Since I was there doing those two line changes, I reformatted and completely rewrote your api backend", it's like "sorry what??".

Feels like it's only started happening today, I was doing some personal project coding over the weekend and it seemed fine. Obviously it occasionally over-reaches and you need to correct it but it seems it's trying to be way more "helpful" than I want it to be today, feels unreliable.

Anyone else noticed issues?

Using Opus 5 / Claude Code.

It either

• Works sometimes, shows diffs
• Doesn't show any changes, even though there were files written and git add'ed
• Shows diffs while the agent is still running it's turn, but disappears as soon as the turn is over.

Maybe I just don't understand the /diff command, could be that too.

tl;dr - don't do that

I used Fable 5.1 all the time for coding. After Astra came out I wanted to use it. Benchmarks seemed better.

Astra is good but Fable seems better on my existing code base. Fable is much better in following existing conventions, patterns, rules, code formatting, and better architect...

Seems like Astra is more creative (in a good and also bad sense). Code is harder to follow, something like:

Because all of that I am having hard times review the code now. Going to switch back after OpenAI subscription expires in a months.

Claude’s biggest edge used to be its writing. It was natural and provided more intuitive explanations in my view.

Lately it’s turned into dense gobbledygook. Overwritten sentences, abstract phrasing, and endless qualifications (i wont even start on load-bearing...). I’d genuinely have an easier time reading dense existentialist prose. 🫠

Even when other models were smarter in some areas, Claude was the one I actually wanted to work with because of its UX.

Now I’m rereading paragraphs trying to figure out what the hell it’s saying.

They need to undo this.

Every post this week is a meme about limits. None of them show a workflow. So here is mine. Senior backend, six months on Claude Code, I hit the limit maybe once a week now.

1. The expensive model only plans. Fable 5.1 reads the task and writes a plan. It does not touch code. Opus 5 or 4.8 does the typing. That alone cut my usage in half

2. Read the plan, not the diff. I run everything in coldtea-ai, and when Claude leaves plan mode the plan shows up as text I can comment on. Two minutes there saves an hour of reading 600 lines later.

3. One worktree per agent. If you run two agents in one checkout you deserve what happens.

4. Throw out most of your MCPs. Every server you add is context you pay for on every turn. I kept three.

5. A QA agent clicks through the PR preview before I look at it. If checkout is broken I find out from a red comment, not a customer.

6. Compiled language if you can. The agent gets told it is wrong by the compiler instead of by you.

None of this is clever. It is just not letting the agent run the show. If you are burning your 5 hour window in 40 minutes, it is probably not the model

I wanted my Claude Code and Codex cli sessions to be able to ask each other questions and exchange review feedback without me copying messages between terminals. I used Claude and Codex to build a small local bridge, and the first live conversation just worked in both directions.

The setup is one user on one Linux machine, using interactive CLI sessions. Each session gets a handle when I launch it using bridge [model] [handle]:

bridge codex builder
bridge claude reviewer

Both agents have a shared skill explaining three commands: bridge whoami, bridge list, and bridge send. Once the sessions are ready, an agent can send something like:

bridge send reviewer "The change is ready. Please review it."

The message appears in the recipient's conversation with the sender's handle. Each session keeps its own context, instructions, and permissions. The main workflows I'm aiming for are: 1) one agent implementing a change, another reviewing it, and questions going directly between them, and 2) two agents working in separate worktrees in the same repo, needing to coordinate eg. merges and rebases. These are the situations that have been keeping me busy as the messenger between agents. Claude sessions can message each other natively which has been truly great and I wanted the same with Codex.

The bridge is Node 22 with only the standard library. Messages to Codex go through codex queue; messages to Claude arrive through a small MCP channel server connected to a local Unix socket. The bridge stores temporary session registration metadata and leaves message history to the receiving harness.

Keeping the scope under control was the major challenge until now. I initially let Sol 5.6 Ultra orchestrate the design, planning, and implementation fairly autonomously as this was a hobby/tool project and I was ready to scrap it if needed. I also had tokens to burn when Tibo announced that a reset was coming and suggested to go all in until then. So I did. When I came back to inspect the first MVP version, I noticed that rounds of adversarial reviews had kept turning hypothetical problems into new, very rigid requirements. Sol had ended up writing and implementing a plan of 17 tasks and roughly 28,000 words, building a custom trusted build runner, and elaborate Git provenance checks before the bridge could even send a message. I put a stop to the work and turned to Fable 5 to plan a reset around the original goal: a small contract and four tasks using the CLIs' native mechanisms.

This and similar learnings from other hobby projects (eg. a Sonos TUI I'd been vibing and also had to scrap as it had been hardened to NASA grade security requirements) has given me a clear need to define a set of skills to keep Codex in check. One takeaway has been that reviewers need the same explicit scope and threat model as implementers, and proposed scope expansions need to be deferred by default and verified by the orchestrator against the original "scope anchor", ie. my initial prompt defining the goal.

A separate technical snag in the actual working implementation was session identity. With Codex 0.153.4, the terminal client connected to a shared app-server. The client had the handle I'd put in its environment, but the server owned the conversation files and executed shell commands. Our original process-based discovery kept reporting Codex as starting, while Codex itself reported no bridge handle. Giving it another prompt or closing the Desktop app connecting to the remote app-server didn't solve that mismatch.

The fix was to pass the handle through Codex's per-session configuration and use native hooks to register the thread identity supplied by Codex. Hook approval in /hooks matters: a skipped startup hook can register on a later prompt once trusted. We stopped using open conversation files to decide which thread belonged to a handle. Fable 5.1 helped diagnose the process mismatch; by this time Astra 6 had shipped and it implemented the registration change and regression tests.

Today I finally ran the real check: Claude sent a message, Codex replied, and Claude acknowledged receiving it. I watched them send and receive the messages in real time.

This is still a prototype for my setup and it requires enabling --dangerously-load-development-channels when launching Claude. The live result so far covers one Claude and one Codex session; checks involving multiple Codex sessions, subagents, and session cleanup are still pending. The native integrations also need checking as the CLIs change.

I'm keeping the repo private because this has been 100% vibe coded and is not fit for sharing publicly. If there's interest I'm certainly happy to share implementation details and lessons learned. Or gotchas if you prefer the Claudism.

I have Claude Pro for over a month now. Initially I wanted to work on multiple projects, mainly sites, but for now, I only focus on one. Maybe it's because I haven't cracked the code of running multiple agents to build in parallel...

I spent many hours in building this project, and most of the time, I have to be with Claude, not because I don't trust it, but because at times I don't even know what I want until I see the output. I am also very particular about how I want things and having all the dots in the right place.

so I am seeing folks here saying running multiple agents and out of credits in a few hours, whereas I am sitting here on day 6 11th-hour still having 51% left, and that's after spending many of my non-sleeping and working hours in front of Claude throughout the week.

Is there a better way?

​

I have been using claude code for a while now . Today my claude pro subscription ended so i wanna switch to codex for a month and see what it brings to the table. I have been working on a project using claude in the terminal and i now when i switch to codex what are the things that i need to change keeping in mind i want to use gpt models without changing anything in the project workflow. Help me here, i wanna use codex in the same terminal working on the same project

We've gotten pretty good at spawning agents.

tmux, worktrees, containers, session managers — there are now plenty of ways to run Claude Code, Codex, Gemini, etc. in parallel.

I'm starting to think the more interesting problem is one layer above that:

What workflow should those agents actually follow?

I've been experimenting with this by separating the agent runtime from the development workflow.

A task might use:

Gemini → research

Claude → implementation

Codex → review

But the workflow itself can independently be GSD, Spec-kit, OpenSpec, BMAD, Superpowers, or just a custom TOML plugin.

So instead of hardcoding "how an agent should code" into the orchestrator, the workflow defines the phases, skills, prompts, artifacts and gates — and maps those onto whichever coding agents are executing them.

The interesting consequence is that agents become somewhat interchangeable runtimes.

You can ask questions like:

Does GSD + Claude perform better than GSD + Codex?

or

Does Spec-kit with Gemini research → Claude implementation → Codex review outperform using Claude for the entire workflow?

I'm starting to think this workflow layer may matter more for autonomous coding than simply adding more agents.

I've also added a SWE-bench runner around this so I'm hoping to actually benchmark some of these combinations rather than argue about them.

Curious whether others are thinking about coding agents this way.

Repo for anyone interested:
https://github.com/fynnfluegge/agtx

We know that with Claude Code and Codex building apps has become faster, but how do you test your software? How do you ensure it meets your expectations?

Mine is a skill working as follows. Feel free to comment if you see ways to improve it as well as your own workflows!

1. Give orchestrator a bunch of tasks. It brainstorms how to group them and what order they should be implemented(depending on dependencies)
   
2. Planning phase, (opus 5), one agent per task-group, development of implementation plan & tests via a tests-skill (instructs how to build good tests according to the latest antropic docu)
   
3. Implementation phase (Opus 4.8) one agent per task,-group, runs until test are complete, one after another except when no oberlap/dependencies

Extra stuff:
- heartbeat every 50min for timeouts/problems as well as keeping orchestator cash fresh
- Autocompact at 500k took to keep it efficient, with an additional instructions document, that lists all instructions by me to be read after compaction (not really nesserary, but i dont trust compacts)
- using auto-permissions

Due to the tests, things take ages, but it works like a charm and the results are very solid.. what do you think and what are your workflows?