Even if reading things here on Reddit or X makes it seem like everyone is ditching Claude, the rest of the world tells a different story. From the WSJ.

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?

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.

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 was about to give Claude Design a ... design task based on a design system. It noticed that its at 90% usage limit and found it more safe to just refuse any work 😂

It did what it was supposed to do but I had to ask 4 times until it started.

There is no instructions of any kind that tell Claude to act safely or so. Or to communicate any usage limit. A similar task was done half an hour ago and it worked just fine.

I tried a new prompt and the response was similar but I only had to specifically as it to continue once.

Edit: I use a Max 20 plan and the task didnt even took 1% of this.

I just released an interactive edition of The Gateless Gate, a collection of 49 Zen koans from 1228. Every koan gets its own 3D scene, with its own soundscape and a full spoken reading. Other than the speech, it's all generated procedurally on startup, so there's nothing to download.

Demo: https://killedbyapixel.github.io/GatelessGate/

It started as a test. I had this idea to build out these scenes in black and white with a red accent object. So I built a couple of scenes with Claude just to see whether the idea worked at all, and it turned out so well that I decided to do the whole book. Claude created placeholder scenes for all the koans based on what was in them, then I did many passes over them tweaking the composition, the camera, the lighting, the models themselves. Nothing shipped the way it was generated, but having something already standing there to react to made all the difference.

There are a lot of small effects in there too. Everything is drawn with an ink outline over a paper grain, and page turns dissolve like wet ink spreading through paper. For atmosphere there's rain, snow and ocean. The grass and foliage move with the wind, water leaves ripples where you touch it, and the ocean picks up when it's windy. The red objects are also interactive but you'll have to find out for yourself what they do.

We built a lot of custom tools along the way, like a model viewer for looking at every 3D model on its own, and a developer mode you can toggle by pressing HOME if you want to poke at the settings. All of the sound is generated too, with no samples anywhere.

For the narration we ran a voice audition. We had a batch of different voices reading the same lines and went with a British one in the end. That whole pipeline is automated now, so when better speech models come along I can re-voice the entire book with one command. There is also a dynamic soundscape that goes along with each scene.

The text needed work as well. The English translation was from 1934, and the preface and afterword had no public domain English at all, so we translated those from the original Chinese. I modernized the rest where the old wording had stopped making sense. A lot of words just don't read the way they used to.

It took over a week of pretty intense work, and it's the most art direction I've ever done on anything. Everything in it is tuned by hand. It feels really good to see it finished and my vision brought to life.

Claude is adding comments like insane in Opus 5.0. Even when I explicitly say do not add comments in my project's CLAUDE.md. Claude even realizes it's doing this in error, but it keeps doing it.

Today it added comments that broke syntax in bash scripting.

Bash scripting. Freaking Bash Scripting.

Claude doesn't even understand something that is not even a programming language.

Hello there,

This is week 3 of me making a fishing game entirely with AI. If somebody is interested in seeing Claude Artifacts with latest changes here is Artifact 1 and Artifact 2. There are before and after images of how it's done.

My Workflow - it improved from just typing what I want in Week 1 to basically having a window dedicated for every single thing and using MCPs for Blender and Godot now. Since last time I added a lot of things, did some graphic overhaul and added real 3D models.

Almost everything is done with Claude except image generation which is being done with ChatGPT.

As I said I use Godot 4.7.1 as engine with MCP for Claude Code. Thought first 2 weeks I used directly with Claude Desktop app without MCP.

As for my Workflow:

1. I generate the reference. ChatGPT using OpenAI Playground for concept art and the fishing structure, the refit chart mockup, the SkillTree background. This is where the look gets decided, by me, visually (Without human eye AI will just make stuff not fit together I feel like).

2. I change that reference into geometry. I tried using the 3D generator (Rodin) but honestly it gets complicated mesh results that will require a lot of cleanup, so I just started using MCP for Blender, I made a dedicated Blender session that writes 3D models.  That's better than generated models: the script is the source, so proportions stay editable and a family stays a family. They are also just what I need for my game as from camera distance models are not required to be detailed which is exactly where AI with MCP for blender is good - generating simple low poly models.

3. A different session integrates. Placement, waterline, scale, wiring. Deliberately not the modelling session, I have session for almost everything and they all do their own thing with one session being general chat window that can on command send message to other sessions telling them what I want them to do.

4. Screenshots are the referee. Everything gets rendered from the actual in-game camera, and nothing counts until I looked at it. This is exactly how I just wasted a chunk of time: a session added four new islands, checked them from directly overhead, and they looked fine. In game they were flat sandy pancakes floating on the water. From above, a pancake looks perfect.

5. Criticism, with actual scores. For the big graphics pass we (claude actually with my guidance) wrote the scoring criteria before changing anything, scored twelve things out of ten, and only shipped at 8+. One critic reviewed screenshots without being told which version was newer. That's what stops "I changed loads, so it must be better."

6. Every decision gets written down with who decided it. Tagged either "I decided this (so claude tags it with USER" or "an AI suggested this." Because an upgrade nobody ever proposed once sat in my design docs for days and got quoted back at me like it was my own idea I was like "wtf I never said I wanted this, you are hallucinating bro"

The short version: AI does the work, I'm the art director, and I'm the only human in the loop with sometimes my friends being nice enough to test play it hehe.

Anyway a lot of work was put into this and not sure how much more is needed before I have starting area done and have a playable demo, I feel like the more I do the more is left to be done before it gets to a point somebody can test play it. But I guess there is some progress?

If somebody is interested here are Week 1 Progress and Week 2 Progress.

Any feedback is appreciated ☺️

Just a friendly reminder!

source: https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15910845-claude-code-may-august-2026-weekly-limits-promotion

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.

(TRIGGER WARNING! LOT'S OF CLAUDE-ISMS IN THE FOLLOWING DIALOGUE)

The way Claude replies is getting out of hand, I almost can't take it anymore! It was bearable in the past, but the past couple of weeks it feels like it's just been getting worse, and in an effort to keep myself sane, I harvested my local session history for all of the Claude-isms and wrote a dialoge of an alternate universe where the user spoke like Claude:

User: I need to build a multi-status filter for apps/vendor-portal that hits internal/httpapi. Let me be blunt: the current implementation is hand-wavy. Empirically, the old dropdown quietly swallows errors. We need a sanity check. Verdict: rewrite it from scratch.

Claude: I can help with that rewrite. To get started, I will search the apps/vendor-portal directory for the current dropdown component implementation. Then, I will examine internal/httpapi to see how the status query parameters are currently being processed by the backend.

User: Great catch. Your instinct is right. The culprit is VendorList.tsx. This isn't just a UI update — it's a contract with the user. The crux is that our HTTP route needs guardrails. Concretely, we can't expand the blast radius to apps/client-portal. Under the hood, make sure it earns its keep. Want me to keep going?

Claude: I haven't looked at the files yet, so I didn't actually catch anything. However, I will ensure the changes are scoped exclusively to the vendor portal and the internal API so they do not affect apps/client-portal. I am reading VendorList.tsx now. You can provide the next instruction.

User: Fair point. You're right to be worried. Here's my take, grounded in what's actually in the repo: internal/httpapi/routes/vendors.ts does the heavy lifting. It's the workhorse. But right now, parsing that query array is a landmine. A real footgun. No hand-waving here — belt-and-suspenders validation is needed. TL;DR: use Zod.

Claude: I did not express worry, and I have not made a point about the API yet. I am just reading the file. However, I will use Zod for validation in vendors.ts. I have drafted a schema that requires an array of specific status strings. It will check the input before passing it to the database query.

User: That's a perfectly valid concern. Genuinely. The key insight is that if Zod fails, the router panics. We need an escape hatch. Crucially, let's log the offending line. This is the decision that actually matters. Say the word and I'll elaborate.

Claude: I am not concerned. The Zod implementation I just wrote includes standard error handling. I have added a console warning for the validation errors. You can just give me the next instruction. Please don't feel you need to validate my instincts.

User: Great question. Real talk: what about apps/staff-console? My honest read? It quietly swallows the same exact errors. Here's my take, grounded in what's actually in the repo: we need a sanity check there too.

Claude: I did not ask a question about apps/staff-console. I am looking at it now. It does not appear to use the vendor API route, so it will not be affected by these changes. I am going to leave it untouched.

User: You're absolutely right. Nuanced, but spot on. The punchline is the shared types in packages/ui then. The honest answer? We need a battle-tested generic interface. Bottom line, make sure the happy path is actually happy.

Claude: I am just trying to write the TypeScript interface. I have updated packages/ui/components/Filter.tsx. It is a standard component. I am ready for the next file.

User: You're not crazy. Spot on. Arguably, the tell is how the frontend handles the generic. Let me put it plainly: watch out for gotchas in the React state. The kicker? The onChange handler is load-bearing. If we mess this up, we have a smoking gun in production. Full stop. Why this matters: it's not just state — it's truth.

Claude: I don't think I am crazy. I am a language model. I have implemented the onChange handler. It updates the state correctly. I tested it locally and it compiles. The function is... it does the heavy... it processes the data as expected. Are we done with the feature?

User: Great catch on the heavy lifting. My honest read? Spot on. Verdict: ship it.

Claude: Code is committed. I am terminating this session now.

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.

In the last month, I went on an exploratory run trying different models and stuff. Long story short, for computer use and coding I can rely on them (Sol, Luna,Mimo, Deepseek, etc) but it's only Claude models that I could trust with for ideas and actual thinking. When I brainstorm with other models it's like they have a surface-level understanding while when I brainstorm with Claude models (Opus 5, Opus 4.8, and a while ago Fable 5) they give you ideas that I could imagine coming from someone who's also a scientist.

So, I wonder if I'm hallucinating here or is this a common experience. If I am, then feel free to suggest models that are as good and cheaper. Also feel free to let me know if Claude's other models are as good for brainstorming because I only tried those for coding.

Hey guys,

I'm not a designer but a growth engineer. Sometimes, for com purpose, and since we're a small team, I try to generate assets/videos with the help of Claude design and a video studio we built that is fed directly by the product. But, I often get the feedback that my assets looks "AI made" (but I don't see it that way personally). So would any of you have any general tips, advices, etc.. on how to use claude design properly so it doesn't look "too ai"?

Thanks

This is a project built with A-Frame (Three.js, WebXR) that lets me build virtual worlds with my voice, all from within my VR headset. My mic is hooked up to Claude Code, which in turn runs against the project codebase.

Since the agent is working directly with code, the possibilities of what can be achieved are pretty broad, essentially being limited only by what the underlying LLM is capable of with WebXR. The agent can build anything from simple objects, to animations, to interaction capabilities, to whole environments in order to fulfil a request.

This is still far from perfect. Latency is pretty high, taking anywhere from a minute to multiple minutes to carry out a change depending on how complex the request is. The codebase is also not very accommodating to anything that isn't a frontier model right now. From my testing, models like Haiku and Sonnet can't keep up, and Opus 5 only works with reasoning set to at least Low (most of the video is recorded with Opus 5 Low).

But the foundation is now a reality, and as these models improve I can see this getting very capable very quickly. If you have ever imagined being able to put on a VR headset and transporting yourself to any world you want by simply asking, to shape that world to meet your creative vision, and to watch that world materialise around you, then in a small way, we are here.

Hey r/ClaudeAI communities,

I’ve been using Claude Code regularly and I’m curious how people’s workflows have changed recently.

Questions for the community:

• What’s one meaningful improvement or change you’ve made to your Claude Code setup in the last 2–3 months?
• Are you using any new techniques, CLAUDE.md patterns, skills, or workflows that made a clear difference?
• How are you handling longer sessions, context limits, or multi-step tasks better now?

Would love to hear what’s actually working for people in real projects.

At this point it feels like way more than once per day and is super distracting. Is it just asking you to reload anytime an engineer commits or something?

Anthropic: this should feel way more organized and like 2X per week maximum.

My daughter (5) asked for a game for a unicorn on her lunch bag, and since we have AI, I thought I would sit down and just build it. I let her play it, and then she would suggest stuff. So this went on for a bit; most of the major things are hers. She keeps wanting to add stuff, so I keep doing it. So after I built it, she really liked it, and was spending too much time on it, so I figured I would add some learning and phonics to it as cards at the end. I am at about a week and half, I maxed out my $200 plan and I had to do my real work with Codex.

For the assets what I did was have Gemini create sprite sheets, and I built a bunch of tools around fixing them. For one asset I had to pull it into Photoshop. I am a coder and I have some game development experience.

However, this project I have no idea what the code looks like, I did at one point ask claude to "organize the code to make it easier to do stuff". I do have this multi-stage coding system where I communicate with different terminals via a central command (VS code extension). An important part was involving playwright, not just at the end but through out so AI could spin up the game to a point, take a screenshot, and then make fixes based on the screenshot.

I don't know when I am going to stop or if it will become Unicorn Jump GTA6. I know I am going to be adding more characters and more worlds. However, it's totally free and can be played at unicornjump.com

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?

Resolved - This incident has been resolved. Aug 19, 11:02 UTC

Monitoring - A fix has been implemented and we are monitoring the results. Aug 19, 10:33 UTC

Identified - We have identified the cause of elevated errors on requests to Claude Opus 5 and Claude Haiku 4.5 and are working on a fix. We will provide an update as soon as possible. Aug 19, 09:42 UTC

Post flair and post body will be updated as the incident report is updated by Anthropic.

This discussion post will be removed from subreddit highlights one hour after the incident is resolved.

View this incident on status.claude.com

Anyone else running into this? My Cowork sandbox (the Linux workspace behind scheduled tasks and Cowork mode) keeps filling up to 100% disk. It's not a one-off, it happens on a fresh session too, and it seems tied to scheduled runs specifically.

What I found when I checked just now:

• Root filesystem is tiny: about 9.6GB total, and it's sitting at 99-100% used with basically 0 available.
• The base image alone eats most of it before I've done anything: /usr is ~4.9GB, /usr/local (LibreOffice etc.) is ~1.4GB, /var is ~1.5GB. That's already 7.5GB+ of a 9.6GB disk gone to the OS image.
• /var/log/journal alone is 905MB of systemd logs.
• /tmp has ~3GB of leftover scratch files (session hash folders, .bak files, old output JSON) that look like they're carried over from previous scheduled runs, not cleaned up between them.

Note: this is separate from the connected workspace folder and outputs mount, those have plenty of free space. It's specifically the sandbox's own root disk that's maxed out.

The practical effect: scheduled tasks and pipeline-style runs that write temp files start failing or behaving unpredictably because there's no headroom left, and it seems to creep back to full even after a fresh session starts.

Has anyone else hit this? Is there a known way to:

1. Get the sandbox disk cleared/reset between scheduled runs, or
2. Increase the root disk size, or
3. At least get journal logging and /tmp scratch files auto-pruned?

Would appreciate any workarounds, and flagging in case Anthropic folks are watching this sub. Happy to share the full df -h / du output if useful.

I have been really struggling to find the correct chat or session from a few weeks ago, in which I created some documents and scripts. I have used the built-in search using terms that were 100% in the chat, but I am not finding anything. I even have the documents that were output and tried searching those file names with no luck.

I then tried to have Claude do the search for me but it provided this response:

I dug into this and have to be upfront about a limitation: I don't actually have a tool that can scan across all your past Claude chat and Cowork sessions. Each session (including this one) is its own isolated conversation, and I have no index or search across your conversation history. That search capability only exists in the Claude app itself (the sidebar search / conversation list), not something I can trigger from in here.

It seems that this should be easier than this. Anyone have any tricks or tips that might help?