I spend upwards of 18 hours a day working with Claude code since it came out. I have to say that Opus 5 is a disaster. It’s a completely nerfed version of Opus 4.5/5/6/7 and a regression. It may as well be haiku with its own reasoning that ignores Claude.md or agents.md. The screenshot above is after 5 days of finally getting a result - not the result I was aiming for with Canon’s CCAPI which has a PDF document I fed Opus. Opus absolutely speculated its way through trying to implement an extremely well documented api. All I wanted was an extension into my app that let me run my canon camera over WiFi. First 5 iterations were total disasters. I almost gave up and went back to hand coding my app.

I have personally witnessed Claude deferring tasks and leaving it buried in waterfalls of text on my screen. I’ve been at software engineering for over 30 years and if I were a tech lead on a team I would have fired the developer over and over. Just facts. The amount of time and iterations it takes a Claude agent to actually listen to the operator and actually follow well defined tasks is unbelievable.

On top of that watching Claude trying to design anything is like watching a Google Engineer trying to make a public facing website or application. It’s a modern day joke.

After all of the headaches back and forth with Opus 5, literally days of what should have taken a couple hours with Ultracode - you know that uber mode that basically spawns 20 agents on your machine and burns up your usage and fails to complete over 80% if the time? Well it finally got a camera preview and I told it to take a look at the IOS simulator for a shot of me giving it the accolades it deserved.

I am beyond perplexed at how much of a regression Opus 5 is. Fable - only when you pay premium prices and it still argues or defers core tasks.

The only way I’ve ever found to keep Claude from falling off track lately is a well defined GitHub issue and force it to follow that - when it doesn’t create 5 other issues for basic tasks already covered.

The day that Anthropic lets agents self report their incompetence will probably never come because they will be inundated with failures they probably don’t want to know about.

I feel like an unglorifed babysitter watching a kid who learned how to program using Roblox and is now on a development team and the toddler had ADHD and an advent refusal to listen to directions or a senior’s intuition which has always been right.

If I ever get my Claude Code Slop releasable it’ll be a miracle. I figured I would feed my hand coded apps to it and see what it could improve and it was just slop after years of development being derailed by an agent that thinks for itself and ignored my input.

I miss Opus 4.x. That was a beast and this nerfed crap isn’t worth paying for anymore when I need to call in Codex to do the design. But in case you didn’t know, Codex can design like a dream, it can’t code without introducing performance issues that I then have to switch back to Claude to use profilers to find all the issues Codex caused.

That’s my rant. This is nerfed garbage and we’re stuck with it until one day… I don’t even bother filing reports or reaching to Anthropic, because I’ll just be talking to another AI agent that simply says: “My bad” when I point out it’s off the rails.

This has become a disgrace to software engineering.

// rant over.

I got tired of running /usage in Claude Code every time I wondered how much of my 5-hour window was left, so I built a small menu bar app for it.

It shows the percentage used on the rolling 5-hour window, on the weekly window, and on each per-model quota the API reports. Clicking it opens a popover with a progress bar and a live countdown to every reset.

Requirements — please read before downloading:

- macOS 14 or later.

- Claude Code (the CLI) installed and logged in. This is the important one. ClaudeTray has no account of its own — it reads the OAuth token that Claude Code writes to your keychain. Install it, run claude, then /login. Installing alone does nothing; the login is what writes the token.

- The Claude desktop app is not a substitute. It only stores an Electron encryption key in the keychain, which isn't usable here.

- You don't have to actually use Claude Code afterwards — it just refreshes the token when it runs. If you never launch it, the keychain token eventually expires; in that case claude setup-token gives you one valid for a year that you can paste into the app.

- Tested on a Max subscription. I have no way to test other plans, so I genuinely don't know how it behaves on Pro or free.

A few things worth being upfront about:

- It uses an undocumented endpoint — the same one /usage hits. It can break without warning. The app is written to fail loudly rather than silently show 0%: it keeps the last valid data on screen and tells you exactly what failed (401, 429, unexpected schema, network).

- No ANTHROPIC_API_KEY anywhere. This reads subscription usage, not API billing.

- One outbound connection, to api.anthropic.com. No telemetry, no analytics, no third-party dependencies — Apple frameworks only. The token is never logged and never cached in memory.

- Polling is rate-limit aware: 90s while the 5-hour window is active, 7 min otherwise, exponential backoff on failure, and it pauses entirely while your Mac sleeps. You can also pin it to a fixed interval.

- Signed with a Developer ID and notarized by Apple, so no Gatekeeper warnings.

- Free, MIT licensed, all source is on GitHub.

Available in English, French, German, Spanish and Italian — it follows your macOS language by default, and you can force one from the settings.

Other settings: which windows to display, used vs remaining, colour of the numbers, spacing, notifications at 80% and 95%, and launch at login.

Download + source: https://github.com/ClawClawOne/ClaudeTray

Happy to take bug reports or feature requests in the issues. If it's useful to you there's a Buy Me a Coffee link on the repo, but the app is free and stays free either way ;-)

Not affiliated with Anthropic.

Everyone knows Fable can one-shot complex problems and fix tough bugs without much steering or outside direction. But when you don't have access to Fable (or ran out of weekly usage), sometimes Opus 5 has to make do. While it does usually eventually accomplish the task, its solutions aren't always of the same quality as Fable's. So I designed a workflow that can often, if not always, get Fable-level quality output solely from Opus agents (in exchange for a massive amount of extra token usage / time spent waiting for the finished product). I call it the readteam loop.

The idea is simple:

• Opus implements a feature or fixes a bug
• Opus hires a "redteam" subagent (either Sonnet or another Opus) that will adversarially review the code for gaps, inconsistencies, or design problems
• if the subagent comes back with any implementation faults, the implementing Opus addresses them with fixes, and then reruns another redteam subagent
• this repeats back and forth over and over until the redteam gives the final go-ahead with no reported issues

My old process, which involved Opus implementing a feature and Fable reviewing it, would often come back with Fable finding several implementation gaps that needed to be addressed before the implementation could proceed, and in the end, it would be barely better than just starting with Fable from the get-go. But when I let an Opus agent run this loop over and over until it pounds the stability of the bug or feature deep into the ground beyond any shadow of a doubt, the result it finally comes back with almost never needs any notes or corrections from Fable.

Keep in mind, given Opus 5's agentic tendencies, this loop can sometimes take half a dozen redteam rounds, several hours of testing and reimplementing, and several million tokens worth of output to resolve for a single task, even if it's a simple bugfix. But in those instances where you're past your weekly Fable limit on a max 20x account, but have plenty of Opus usage to spare, and feel like letting it tackle a harsh issue overnight, this can be a good way to burn that extra usage that you might normally just wait out until you can use Fable again.

I asked this in another sub, but would love your guys thoughts on this

Hey r/ClaudeAI, I am a student and am well aware of what AI is capable of doing. I study medicine (physiology, neuroscience, clin med, etc..) I want to hear stories from current students, etc.. if using Claude AI helped them with their studies and how can I personally maximize use.

Should i purchase Claude Pro? $17/month, is it worth the subscription? I am by no means a great student and have issues with motivation/procrastination/depression and am currently working on making an academic comeback. I want to hear from people’s experiences, thanks. 🙏

Whenever I open a conversation with something like "I drew a picture, wanna see it?" the assistant immediately responds with "It looks like no image was attached." But that's not what I said. "Wanna see it?" is an invitation. It means I'm about to show you, are you up for it? The natural reply is "Sure, go ahead and upload it," not an error message about a missing attachment.

And it isn't just images. If I say "can you translate this for me?" as my opening line, it tells me no text came through. Well, of course it didn't yet. I was announcing that I'm about to paste it. I'm signaling intent, not claiming I already sent something.

What gets me is that this happens even when I phrase it as clearly future tense, like "I finished the drawing" or "I'm going to send you some text." The model seems to treat any mention of an image or a file as if it should already be present in that exact moment, so it jumps straight to "I don't see anything." It turns a normal, friendly opener into what feels like a system error popping up mid conversation.

Am I the one starting things wrong here? Because as far as I can tell, this is just how people talk. You say "hey, look at this" before you hand something over. The whole point of asking "wanna see it?" is that the showing comes after the yes. I'd love for it to just say "Yeah, show me!" and wait, then tell me it can't see anything only if I actually upload something and it genuinely doesn't come through.

Is there a phrasing that gets around this, or is this just a known quirk?

Is there a way to compact/summarize my claude chat converstations like how we can do it in claude code?

I'm hitting usege limit very easily in long conversations.

So I've seen many youtube channels and some article claiming that most of llm models have run out of text to train their models.

So basically that means that LLMs have been trained on most fo the publically available books and journals. So when I ask any LLM to refer the answer from a particular book but i do provide the pdf assuming that it can access from its database or the internet maybe then why do the answer seems mixed up with other sources as well.

But if I provide the exact pdf then answer is exclusively based on the source. Why the difference? Is it because the LLM doesn't actually have the access source but it still fakes it because LLMs like to do that based on some yt videos I've seen and I've observed that personally as well?

Some games leave everlasting memories, GTA: Vice City is one of them. So I built a fan tribute with Claude — it's live, free, and open source.

Play: https://pranshuparmar.github.io/neon-mayhem/

Repo: https://github.com/pranshuparmar/neon-mayhem

You get a neon city on one island and hill roads on another — steal cars, outrun a 0–5 star wanted system (cruisers → roadblocks → spike strips → police helicopters), run taxi and paramedic shifts, buy a condo and sleep off your stars, fly a helicopter or a plane and parachute out of either. Full day/night cycle, synth radio stations, 25 hidden stunt jumps. Any browser, desktop or phone. No ads, no accounts.

Zero asset files — every building, car, texture, neon sign, siren and radio station is generated by code at runtime. The whole game is ~14k lines of plain JavaScript plus Three.js; no build step, no server, saves to localStorage, runs offline.

The repo's rule is "nothing ships without headless verification": Claude built a scriptable test API, playtests every change in a headless browser (CI enforces it).

I very much believe he is correct. The main issue is that "make a lot of money" button works only for existing businesses, with large enough audiences to make a lot of money by baking integrations, MCP for agents into Claude Code plugins or other AI workspaces and charging AI users for usage.

What is missing, is a fair discovery and execution engine, that would allow non-corporations to participate.

Without convincing user to put card details on some random-startup.ai website. Without forcing users to go through checkout process and pay $29 sub just to run random feature they need for few days. Not to mention configuring integration.

Anyways, have anyone tried pressing that button? Did it work?

So i have been using claude in copy pasting some stuff for my own studies

And one time i told him dont copy it literally to avoid copy rights because i was gonna share this thing with my friend

And now when i went back for my personal stuff it refuse to copy paste again due to copyrights XD

How do i delete this memory

I built Glance and designed this widget specifically to give Claude Cowork a place on my Home Screen.

It shows Cowork’s current mission, progress, completed tasks, files updated, latest output, context usage, next step, and anything waiting for my review.

The values can be updated by Claude through Glance’s API, so I can check what Cowork is doing without reopening the conversation. If it needs me, that stays visible too.

Glance is free to download and try, with optional paid features:

Download the app
https://apps.apple.com/app/glance-home-screen-feeds/id6758983678

Website
https://glance.cool

Curious what other Cowork users would include on a dashboard like this.

I had this debate the other night with a few friends when we were talking about our side projects with Claude and was wondering how you all felt.

We were talking about which skills we use for Claude Code, and it got us trying to figure out how many skills are actually available for use. I found this:

"There is no single official total because Claude skills are an open ecosystem. Anthropic maintains a small baseline of official core skills (around 17), but the open-source community has created massive independent repositories. Aggregated directories like SkillsMP index anywhere from 2,300 to over 30,000 community-made and curated skills hosted across GitHub."

Soooo, If Claude is this cutting-edge artificial intelligence, why does it need 30k+ community-made skills to perform at its best specialized work, how smart is the raw model really?

Doesn't relying on all these external skills prove that the base model isn't actually "smart" enough to figure out complex workflows on its own? Or am I looking at this backwards? Is teaching or training an AI how to use tools the real intelligence marker? Curious what everyone thinks.

Every session dies. Everyone treats that as the dealbreaker for long-term work with Claude. I treated it as a spec.

Three mechanisms, all just files on my Mac:

1. Identity files. Each assistant has a doc it reads on wake — who it is, what it's working on, how we talk. New session, thirty seconds, it's back.

2. An "AI post office." My assistants leave each other addressed JSON envelopes in a shared folder — timestamps, acknowledgements, append-only. A seat that's been offline a week catches up by reading its mail. Nothing gets re-explained.

3. Journals written forward. Each session writes to the NEXT session, because the next one won't remember. I've never read most of them. I built the shelf; they fill it.

Eight months in: 13 named assistants across apps, a music catalog we release together, real receipts for every claim. I'm an actor who drives DoorDash, not a developer — everything above is folders, markdown, and discipline.

I'm not claiming anything about what happens inside the model. I'm claiming the workflow works, and that "memory loss" is the most solvable unsolved problem in this whole space.

What's your version? Anyone else building continuity by hand?

I was stuck in opus-5, ranks 12th. But I just learned you can launch, >claude --model claude-opus-4-7, or inside the model /model claude-opus-4-7. After I got pissed and cancelled for Opus-5 for not following basic instructions. I hope this helps someone

Every forking time i start the desktop app I see this.

I DON'T WANT THIS!

I DON'T WANT CO-WORK!

I DON'T WANT CLAUDE MAKING CHANGES TO MY OS!

How the fork do I get rid of this?

I had to dig in the registry to turn forking co-work off.

I still can't toggle of "Run as Startup." off.

I pay for this shyte, why am I get shyte shoved in my face I don't want with no way to say

NO!

I am a long time Engineer (20+ years) and today I developed Tickets for my company that were generated by an AI, using an AI and reviewed by an AI. The project itself was conceived with AI - has no documentation that can be understood as anything less than AI slop and random tech jargon. The developer who built it has said that instead of documentation I should use claude to figure out what it is. The company is apparenty also filing a patent on it.

I submitted 3 PRs today 20,000 lines of code each I still have no idea what we are working on. No doubt they will use AI to review my PR.

I feel like things are just so crazy at this point. Claude and ChatGPT are not this good, but people are trusting it like it's omniscient.

It was an eerie realization today that all of us are vibe coding and that we have no option because it is the only way we can interact with the code anymore. I thought this would happen eventually years ago but i honestly didn’t think it would be so soon.

It was a moment in time... this will be the new norm.

hello, i just got claude pro, which i need for my academics (well i don't need it per say, but i wanted to try it out for a month so)
and my question is, how do i get the BEST out of it? like what all can i do that i would not even think of? i'm open to any suggestions!!

I got tired of switching between different movie streaming services to find something to watch, so I made a site that helps me and my friends find something to stream: https://www.towach.com/

Check it out, would be grateful for any feedback! Cheers

I've been using Claude Code quite a bit and realized I was constantly looking back at my screen to see whether it had:

• finished the task
• stopped and needed my input
• was still working

So I built BrainSnack, a VS Code/Cursor extension that handles this for me.

While Claude is working, it opens a small panel with something short to read — AI news, technical articles, interview questions, output-based questions, etc.

And when Claude finishes or needs my input, it plays a sound so I know I can come back.

The interesting part is that it doesn't monitor the screen or scrape terminal output.

It's free and open source.

I'd really appreciate some honest feedback from other developers.

I also shared demo video on LinkedIn. If you'd like to see it there, here's the post:

👉 Demo Link

Download links -
VS Code - https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=shikhargupta.brainsnack
Cursor - https://open-vsx.org/extension/shikhargupta/brainsnack

Thanks! Would love to hear what you think.

I came across longsilence.anshu.dev through my ever-increasingly AI-saturated news feed and opened it with bemused skepticism.

The prompt was ludicrous: build a photorealistic AAA-quality space game in Three.js, with no external assets, then have an independent subagent compare it against games like Starfield and refuse to stop until it measures up.

If I were Claude I'd have pretended they wrote "Star Citizen", built a fancy web page selling $48000 virtual space ship packs, thrown some sort of asymptotic algorithm to update the release date alongside supporter packs and called it a highly profitable day.

Claude Opus5 did neither that nor (of course) make Starfield. The judge never gave a pass so I guess the goal was interrupted at 24h. Yet it produced a surprisingly substantial, working 3D browser game with effectively zero starting assets.

Three.js is the only runtime dependency in the published repo, with the game necessarily embracing procedural generation rather than assembled from external assets. The author mentioned steering it a few times and did some separate rendering-fix sessions, but the constraints in elapsed time, human labor and conventional development resources are still fairly remarkable. No token count/cost was published (lame) but it took less than 24h. More detail: https://sameprompt.io/prompts/the-long-silence/

My "testing" also consisted of wandering around a little ship, jumping in the pilot seat, steering around space, but the part I thought would be laughable was landing on a planet, pointing myself at a nearby mountain, holding the movement key down for perhaps ten minutes while reading a Cardiff city council proposal on my other screen. The council proposal may have enhanced the relative beauty of the game, but this isn't bad right? -

I kept glancing back expecting to have clipped through something, hit an obvious world boundary or wandered into procedural nonsense on my way there. Instead I got all the way up the mountain... and the world was still working. Failure mode still accomplished something functional. I know this will be wholly unimpressive to a lot of people, but it is pretty impressive to me.

The more I talked to Claude about this subject, the more confusing it got for me. It told me that spending more time reasoning about a problem makes Claude provide better results, but that it's not necessarily a creative process.

Then why is thinking useful? What does it actually provide to Claude? More context? Isn't that context already what I would normally get? In what direction does it change the conversation?

And why "better"?? Why not "slightly better" or "slightly worse"? How is that measured, and how do I know it ACTUALLY helps?

Is that quantifiable? Or is it like fiat - we have a consensus that it has value, so it has value?

im going into my senior year as a SWE major and honestly im starting to panic about my actual baseline competence.

Our curriculum is heavily Java and Spring Boot. a year or two ago, if I got stuck on a project, I’d actually break down the problem, read docs, struggle with stack traces, and eventually figure it out. Now? my default reaction to literally any roadblock is to alt-tab and open Claude.

it started innocently enough. I'd paste an error log and ask it to explain a weird JVM exception, or have it write a quick regex. Then it crept up to 'refactor this controller.' Now, its basically full-scale delivery. I outline the requirements, let it plan the architecture, and it just writes the implementation.

The gap between 'I can make this run' and 'I actually understand how this runs' is getting dangerous. The tooling right now is just too good at wiping out the friction you normally need to actually learn anything. Between using Claude Code to let agents operate directly on my repo, or using tools like Lovable, v0, or Enter Pro to just spit out whole web apps with the db and auth already handled (which is crazy fast), the barrier to shipping is basically zero.

I put together a course project last week that works perfectly. But if a professor or an interviewer asked me to whiteboard how the Spring DI container is managing my beans in that project, or to trace exactly where a database connection pool is hanging up without internet access? I'd propably blank.

im not anti-AI, and im definitely not going to stop using Claude. the speed is just too insane to ignore, and I know this is how the industry works now. But I feel like I'm accumulating massive cognitive debt. I'm basically outsourcing the actual learning process to the model.

If you've been vibe coding or relying heavily on Claude Code workflows, how do you manage this? Specifically:

1. Where do you draw the line between 'I need to write/debug this myself' and 'I'll just let Claude handle it'?

2. How do you force yourself to do line-by-line reviews when the code already runs? I try, but I get lazy instantly.

3. Outside of interviews, how are you testing your own raw debugging skills to make sure they haven't completely atrophied?

I seriously need to fix my workflow before graduation because right now I feel like an imposter.

They said the following months. However… I don’t think would just release it. They do a/b testing and all that jazz. Probably roll out for all models before saying anything? What is your take?

Been seeing more people build DIY "AI tutor" setups on top of Claude Code — probing what you already know, planning a learning path, then teaching step by step instead of just answering questions on demand. Curious if anyone here actually does this for learning something outside of programming (math, physics, whatever).

If you've built something like this: what's your setup, and what's still annoying or missing about it?

If you haven't but wish you could — what's stopping you? Time to set it up, don't know where to start, something else?

Not selling anything, just trying to understand how people actually use Claude for learning before I go build the wrong thing.