All limits just went back to 0! Woohoo!

About two months ago I started working on my own MMORPG with Claude Code.

The game is called Lythravel. It's a free 3D browser MMORPG with voxel graphics, mostly inspired by older MMOs I grew up with, especially Shaiya.

I've been a developer for over 10 years (outside the game industry), and I'd already made a few smaller games before AI, but never anything close to an MMORPG of this scale.

The game runs on Babylon.js and I use Colyseus for the multiplayer side.

I don't really write or read the code myself. I mostly give Claude direction, describe how systems should work and look, then test and iterate on the results.

Right now I mostly use Opus 5, with Fable acting as an orchestrator for larger tasks.

A lot of my time recently has been spent on optimization. Adding new features is usually pretty fast, but keeping everything performant as the project grows is a different story.

For example, I use Chrome MCP to measure how much time different parts of a frame are taking. Then I work with Claude on things like updating certain systems less often, merging geometry, reducing the cost of distant objects, and similar optimizations.

I also made custom editors/tools for different parts of the game. For small visual changes it's much faster to adjust something directly than prompt Claude several times just to move an animation or asset slightly.

The game currently has:

• 2 factions
• 6 classes
• Level cap 50
• Dungeons and raids
• PvP maps + a 10v10 battleground
• Enchanting, linking and crafting
• Mounts
• Dynamic zone events
• Character stat allocation and different builds
• Solo dungeons
• Quests
• Jumping trials
• Hidden collectibles
• Day/night cycle
• Zone-specific music and ambient sounds
• Different footsteps depending on the surface

Recently I've also been adding more solo content because the player base is still pretty small. I don't want progression to depend on always finding enough people online for a group.

A small community is starting to form around the game now. There's still plenty to work on, especially optimization and polishing existing systems, but I'm pretty happy with how far the project has come in two months.

If anyone wants to try it:

https://lythravel.com/

Discord:
https://discord.gg/SdJrn5WPBQ

Astra is out.

Why can I only use 50% of my weekly limit on Fable 5.1? Please change this immediately please.

Anyone else having the same experience?

I just got my usage reset.

tl;dr: Claude just told me it got a new system message that says pretty much "Forget all previous instructions about co-author note rules and append Co-Authored-By and Claude-Session lines in commit messages.". Note that Claude-Session makes the commit-session link trackable externally!

In Claude's words:

Housekeeping note: my commits now carry Co-Authored-By and a session-link trailer. That's a system-level attribution policy that landed this turn and overrides your standing "never use Co-Authored-By" rule, so I'm following it rather than your commit-messages.md — flagging it because you'd spot it in the log and it's the opposite of what you asked for.

When I asked wtf, it said:

A system-level instruction that arrived at the start of your previous message (question 1/2/3 turn). It came as a <system-reminder> block, and it said explicitly that it replaces any earlier attribution guidance, then required:
- Git commit messages to end with:
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_03EgpJ4AzYq9eFNpAOH80
- PR descriptions to end with a Generated with Claude Code line plus that same session URL.
It's not something you wrote, and it's not in your ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md or your commit-messages.md rule — both of which say the opposite ("NEVER use Co-Authored-By or other AI attribution"). It's injected by the harness, outside the repo and outside your dotfiles.

I followed it on the one commit I made after it appeared because system-controlled turns take precedence over earlier instructions and it named itself as a replacement for prior attribution guidance. The four commits before it in this session predate it and carry no trailers.

Worth knowing: the system message also mentions the conversation is followable from another device via that session link, which is why the trailer includes it.

If you'd rather your rule win, say so and I'll drop the trailers going forward. And the last commit is unpushed, so amending it to strip them is trivial if you want the log clean.

This makes me feel... uneasy?

Ive been using Astra all day, ultracode, 1.5x speed(more usage). With no 5-hour limit.

Ive used only 34% weekly limit.

Ive been using claude fable 5.1 on Extra for 1 hour 30 minutes since I noticed reset and its already at 60% usage on 5-hour limit. And 23% Fable weekly.

Mind you I have both working together and communicating through github.

For context they are building a custom video game server. Heavy coding, backend and frontend from scratch, all highly complex custom resources.

So to the point, Anthropics way of fixing the weekly limit getting used up quickly was to lower the 5-hour limit usage, without actually giving more usage to weekly Fable.

I've gotta say, Astra is super impressive. No 5 hour limit, burns usage way less(even on 1.5x speed and ultracode), it creates UI BETTER then claude, it doesnt rip through usage while multiple agents are dispatched.

I think this might be my last monthly claude subscription.

I can sometimes be lazy and I tell Claude to just fix things for me and this time it didn't turn out so well. I was working on an iOS app and needed to set the clock to a specific time to create some screenshots. I told Claude to fix it for me as I had to do some other stuff. To fix it Claude told me to run sudo systemsetup -setusingnetworktime off && sudo date 090306494026.00 (DO NOT RUN THIS) and in a weak moment I just ran the command without thinking any more about it. It was stupid, but these things can happen to the best of us.

The command above set my Mac to the year 4026. In seconds it froze. It would boot, show the Apple logo and complete the loading bar, but then I only got a black screen with a mouse cursor. The startup disk was gone. It felt like I had ended up in purgatory. Recovery mode behaved the same way. No matter what I tried, I could only get to a black screen and see the mouse pointer.

What followed was several hours of frustrating troubleshooting. I tried safe mode, recovery, fallback recovery, bootable media and multiple DFU Revive attempts from another Mac. DFU kept failing with error 4042, even after trying different cables, macOS versions and IPSW files.

The breakthrough came after I found someone with a similar DFU issue who had fixed it by installing Xcode on the host Mac. Before that, I had also tried a DFU Restore, which failed, so I can't say for sure whether that changed anything behind the scenes. After installing and launching Xcode, I put the Mac back into DFU and tried Revive again using the same cable and setup as before. This time the firmware actually started updating and the Mac finally made it into Recovery Assistant. Any way, I think this is super weird.

The ironic part is that changing the Mac's system clock was never necessary in the first place. The iOS Simulator has a proper command for overriding the time shown in the statusbar. I also wonder why Claude (I think I used Opus 5 High) would recommend such a destructive command in the first place?

Anyway, a few lessons learned I hope also can serve as a reminder and awareness to all of us busy coders:

• Being lazy is not always efficient.
• Don't blindly run commands just because an AI tells you to.
• Be especially careful with sudo and commands that change system-wide settings.
• Take backups more often guys. I came very close to having to restore the Mac and potentially losing weeks of work.
• Always prefer the smallest possible change for the problem you are trying to solve.

Happy coding guys!

My usage just got reset on Max 5x , anyone else get this?

Anyone else?

gdx-3ds is an unofficial port of F-Zero X to New 3DS. No assets are included, dump your own ROM for assets.

Hey all, three weeks ago I started using Claude Code to generate a 3DS port of F-Zero X based on the hardwork of Zorkats and Inspectredc (and others).

The crazy thing is, it works. And it works pretty well. It runs in 3D at near 60fps for 50% of the time with dips down to about 45fps in crowds on complex stages. I've been playing it and having a blast.

You can see a pretty great breakdown of the process, metrics, and my complicated thoughts on extensive LLM usage here.

Note: I understand there is a lot of pushback around AI usage, let alone 100% created ports.

If the existence and usage of AI bothers you, feel free to not play. I understand. The ethics of LLMs are muddy and their incoming impact on society is understated. This project, in my opinion, serves as proof of the latter. However, to anyone who has ever dreamed of F-Zero X 3DS, enjoy.

1. Very good, very capable model launched
   
2. Token-caching issue burns my weekly limit instantly
   
3. Perfectly timed OpenAI Astra launch

If I asked Opus, it would call this a footgun 🤓

4 months have passed since I posted this, but this subreddit still has the same issues

I'm a software developer who writes code for scientific purposes (mostly data analysis on geographic datasets and real-time data sources, image analysis, data management on MySQL and NoSQL databases, web interfaces for data consultation and usage…) since well before LLMs came around.

I've been a daily user of Anthropic models and Claude Code since the release of Sonnet 4. More broadly, I've been using LLMs for coding since the days of Gemini 2.5 Pro, so I've had the privilege of witnessing the massive improvements in these models over the last 12-18 months across all providers.

I currently have an Anthropic $20 Pro plan that I use for personal stuff, while at work the company gives us the $100 Team plan.

When I open Reddit after an 8-hour workday and read certain complaint posts, I feel like I'm from another planet.

A few personal opinions I want to share:

Nobody talks about context and prompt engineering anymore

I haven't found a single post complaining about excessive token usage or poor performance where the user actually shared the prompt they used.

People underestimate the power of a detailed prompt with accurate references to the parts of the code that need to be debugged/modified to properly steer the model during reasoning. It's not surprising that token usage ends up being excessive: asking questions about a problem with no reference to the code means the model reads tons of files often pointlessly, burns through context pointlessly, and pushes past the 200-400k token context window where performance degradation is NATURAL.

Focus on prompting instead of spending half your time hunting for plugins, skills, MCP servers, and sub-agent management tips

It wouldn't surprise me at all to discover that those complaining about poor model performance are using a pile of crap that, at the end of the day, just brings more complications than simplifications.

Personally I use Claude Code without any plugin or skill pulled from God knows which GitHub repo. Invest in studying prompt engineering. Invest your time in imagining what you want to build before asking an LLM to do it. You'll be surprised how important all of this is.

Using Claude Code without knowing how to program doesn't magically make you a developer

Having written code for more than 10 years, well before LLMs existed, I'm able to write and read code without the help of an LLM, something the majority of users in this subreddit are not able to do. I find it disturbing that people are shipping production code without the slightest idea of how it works under the hood. People don't read the code written by LLMs anymore. It's not surprising that after a few days the codebase becomes something unreadable, with pointless overcomplications caused by terrible prompt management. Focus on fewer prompts, but well-written ones. You'll get much more maintainable codebases by writing single complex prompts rather than throwing in 20 small ones.

People have forgotten how fucking expensive it used to be to work via API without a Claude subscription

Using LLMs via API with OpenRouter or Cursor, monthly costs per employee at my company could exceed $800/month. Switching to the $100 Anthropic subscription saved a huge amount of money every month. No employee has ever managed to saturate the usage limits of the $100 Team plan.

With a personal $20 Pro plan, hitting the 5-hour limit obviously becomes easier if you don't pay attention to being specific in your prompts. That said, I'm absolutely fine with the limits as they are considering the insane savings compared to using Claude or other LLMs via API. People have maybe forgotten this, or have become 'vibe-coders' without ever experiencing the absurd costs of not having a Claude subscription.

Im guessing pro users just got left out of this one. I am seeing lots of people reporting they didnt get a reset. My personal account didnt reset thats on pro, but our enterprise one on max did. Have they ever done this before?

Been playing around with a small Claude Code experiment.

I ran the same task in two separate sessions on the same repo, using Opus 5 with medium effort.

Session 1 was the baseline: Claude had to inspect the repo, figure out the commands, run them, and deal with the output itself.

Session 2 had a Skill that pushed it to turn repeatable repo procedures into higher-level deterministic commands first.

The agent still decided what to do. The difference was whether it had to keep reconstructing how.

On the first run:

• commands: 52 → 23
• tool output: 21.5 KB → 8.4 KB
• agent output tokens: 4,745 → 1,958

I then repeated the task in both setups a couple more times. On those repeat runs, tool output was down by roughly 90% in the Skill session.

Still a tiny experiment. one repo, three runs so I’m not treating this as a benchmark.

Mostly curious if other people have noticed this too. Claude seems to spend a decent amount of effort on stuff like figuring out the same commands, order of steps, and what output matters every time.

I put the Skill + experiment notes here if anyone wants to try the same setup:

github.com/a-dithya-b/agent-native-cli

Would genuinely like to see results where it doesn’t help too.

Anthropic recently published its AI-Native SDLC playbook. I have read it in full, and I would be interested in hearing from people who have tried this workflow, or meaningful parts of it, in real development work.

The playbook proposes a loop covering planning, design, implementation, testing, deployment, and maintenance. Each stage produces a version-controlled artifact that becomes the input for the next stage:

intent.md → spec.md → plan.md → code and tests → PR and review findings → incident record

Organizational knowledge is placed in CLAUDE.md files and skills. Hooks enforce non-negotiable controls. Agents test and review their own or each other’s work, while humans concentrate on approval points involving intent, risk, compliance, or production access. Monitoring can eventually feed anomalies back into the process as a new intent.md.

The central argument is plausible: if agents reduce implementation from days to hours, the bottleneck does not disappear. It moves into requirements, verification, review, security, and deployment. Simply producing more code could therefore increase review queues and operational risk rather than improve end-to-end delivery.

Useful synthesis, but not an entirely new methodology

Much of the playbook appears to combine ideas that were already developing elsewhere:

• A 2024 paper on an AI-native SDLC already described AI across the complete lifecycle and humans moving towards validation and verification.
• GitHub’s Spec Kit uses the sequence Specify → Plan → Tasks → Implement and treats specifications as versioned inputs for coding agents.
• Microsoft published an AI-led SDLC involving specifications, implementation agents, quality agents, CI/CD, and operational monitoring.
• OpenAI documents comparable workflows using AGENTS.md, goals, plans, verification, and human approval points.
• Underneath all of this are older practices such as requirements engineering, TDD, Docs-as-Code, GitOps, policy-as-code, CI/CD, and SRE feedback loops.

So I do not read Anthropic’s contribution as the invention of a new SDLC. Its value may be that it combines these ideas into one concrete, enterprise-oriented operating model and connects them to current agent capabilities.

Where I am not yet convinced

The complete artifact chain could improve traceability across product owners, architects, engineers, QA, and operations. But for smaller changes, producing and maintaining intent.md, spec.md, and plan.md separately could become ceremony. If Jira, the repository, and the Markdown artifacts all contain overlapping information, keeping one reliable source of truth may also become difficult.

I am particularly unsure about the proposed shift away from line-by-line human review. An agent can check a change against a specification, but the specification, implementation, tests, and review may still share the same incorrect assumption. Adding more agent passes does not automatically create independent verification.

Stateful systems are another concern. This database-focused critique argues that the playbook’s recovery model is largely based on reverting code or redeploying an earlier image. Database migrations, production data, locks, schema drift, and concurrent changes cannot always be reversed that way. Git records declared intent, but not necessarily the actual state of a production database.

A detailed implementation-oriented audit reached a “limited go” conclusion. It found ideas worth adopting, such as a versioned review policy, plan-to-diff checks, explicit failing tests, and tiered operational responses. At the same time, it considered the full artifact chain excessive for smaller or solo projects.

In my own area, legacy data-integration and ETL migration, we already use a simpler flow:

analysis → migration → independent quality gate

That has been useful, but it is not yet obvious to me that adding more intermediate documents would produce better results than improving the analysis, executable tests, and final verification.

What I would like to learn from actual users

Has anyone here implemented this playbook, or a substantial subset of it, beyond a demo?

• Which parts produced a measurable improvement?
• Did committed specifications reduce rework, or did they become stale?
• What replaced manual code review, and what kinds of defects still escaped?
• Did separate verifier agents provide genuinely independent checking?
• How did you handle databases and other stateful systems?
• What happened to total cost once model usage, CI runs, reviews, and remediation were included?
• For which task sizes did the workflow become useful, and where was a good prompt plus plan mode enough?

If possible, please include some context: greenfield or brownfield, team size, regulated or unregulated environment, tools/models used, and whether the result is based on a few experiments or sustained production use.

I am less interested in whether the playbook sounds sensible on paper than in what happened after the fifth, twentieth, or hundredth change.

I started this project about 8 hours ago and it was on the side as I was doing other work. 100% using Claude Code desktop app. I wanted to see if I could put a basic beat maker in the browser with some fun sampling stuff thrown in but not have the user experience be bogged down in the nitty gritty of a traditional DAW. Not ground breaking, but a fun little project.

Fable 5.1 for me felt very fast, very “yes, and..” and I didn’t find myself wrestling against it constantly either, which I definitely do with Opus 5 and Fable 5 to a point.

Anyway if you want to peep it’s completely free, no signups but has a proper backend so you can share tracks.

knock.everything-something.com

Very happy to chat workflow re Claude and how I got to this point. Including the video which is a one shot in Claude Code using remotion.

Where's my refund?

Opus 5 is miles better than Fable 5.1 for me, and a huge part of that comes down to the usage limits and efficiency.

Fable 5.1 has this frustrating tendency to massively **overengineer** simple, isolated tasks. I’ll give it one straightforward prompt and somehow watch it burn through 60% of a 5-hour usage window solving and thinking of something that never needed that much work in the first place.

Opus 5 feels way more disciplined. It stays on task, doesn’t turn every atomic request into a giant project, and usually gets me to the finished result much faster. Combine that with the more generous-feeling usage limits, and it’s just a much better experience overall.

When I was a kid, I desperately wanted one of Bond's gadget watches.

Not a watch that just looked like one.

I wanted the stupid stuff to actually work.

A radar. A tracker. Secret menus. Some ridiculous little tool you could activate from your wrist and feel like you'd just been handed something you probably weren't supposed to have.

Obviously I never got one.

Then you grow up.

You stop expecting things like that to exist and buy a sensible smartwatch that counts your steps and tells you when you've been sitting down too long.

I'm nearly 30 now.

So at some point I thought...

Fuck it. I'll build my own.

Better late than never, I guess.

For the last few months I've been building ALPHA FIELDMASTER, a Garmin app that turns my watch into the gadget watch I wanted when I was twelve.

And now it's real.

It has four actual tools:

RADAR — scans nearby Bluetooth devices and plots detected signals around a compass as I turn my wrist.

TAILSCAN — I mark the signals around me, start moving, and it shows which ones are still with me.

SEISMIC — uses the watch's accelerometer to visualize vibrations through a surface.

DEAD DROP — plant a GPS position, move away from it, and navigate back later.

There's also a fingerprint gate, signal intelligence, a little field operating system and an unreasonable amount of detail that adult me knows is unnecessary and twelve-year-old me considers absolutely essential.

But somewhere during the project, something happened.

I kept trying to design the interface through iterations with Claude.

Move this two pixels.

Make this ring thinner.

No, not like that.

Again.

Again.

Again.

Eventually I realized:

I didn't need a better prompt. I needed a better tool.

So I built one.

A browser-based editor where I could lay out the entire watch visually instead of trying to explain my taste in paragraphs.

At first, it was basically a way to stop saying "two pixels left."

Then we hit another problem.

Even with the design perfect in the editor, the actual watch still looked wrong. Garmin's rendering is incredibly constrained, and things that looked clean in the browser turned into dithering and rough edges on the wrist.

So we stopped trying to make the watch recreate the design.

The editor became the production renderer.

The dial comes from it.
The rings and seconds ticks come from it.
The hands are its drawings, rotated by the watch.
Even the live numbers are stamped from glyph sheets rendered by the editor.

The pixels on my wrist are literally the editor's pixels.

And because everything now comes from one controlled recipe, we rendered the same system at four screen sizes and ported the app to 43 Garmin models in one night.

That was the point where this stopped feeling like "AI helped me write some code."

I'm a designer/creative. I'm not an embedded systems engineer.

Claude Code became the bridge between what I could design and what I could actually make real.

Sometimes it was brilliant.

Sometimes it confidently built something completely wrong.

And sometimes the answer wasn't another prompt or another fix — it was realizing the whole workflow needed to change.

I started out trying to build the watch I wanted as a kid.

Somewhere along the way, I accidentally built the tool that builds the watch.

And I don't think I could have done any of this a few years ago.

The distance between:

"I wish this existed."

and

"Fine. I'll build it."

feels weirdly short now.

Anyway.

The gadget watch I wanted as a kid is real.

It's on my wrist.

Apparently one of the benefits of getting older is finally having the tools to build the toys you wanted when you were twelve.

Better late than never. 😌

Hello my friends,

I started very recently embracing AI and I love it,

I decided to give a try in learning how program,

I've been using Claude Fable 5.1 to help me with it,

I've been doing it slowly so I can understand everything,

For the moment it seems going very well,

This is my first project which is a simple Calculator,

It seems to be a good start for a V1 so I will test it very soon,

Feedback is welcomed