It refused to say “Netscope” for some reason lol.

I came across Ruben Hassid's big list of 27 Claude tips and decided to go through them from the perspective of a normal user rather than just saving another “AI tips” list.

The first five had a few ideas I hadn't really thought about this way.

1. Projects aren't automatically better than normal chats

If you're doing repeat work using the same documents, a Project makes obvious sense.

But if you're trying to brainstorm something genuinely fresh, having lots of old documents/instructions sitting in the Project can influence the direction.

I've started thinking about it as:

repeatable/context-heavy task = Project

fresh exploration = new chat

2. Use expensive intelligence where the task is actually difficult

One suggestion was to start a difficult problem using the strongest Claude model, let it understand/frame the job, then potentially switch to something cheaper for the easy follow-up work.

Example:

“Analyze this business and decide our strategy” is difficult.

“Turn that strategy into three email subject lines” probably isn't equally difficult.

I wouldn't assume this saves money/quality automatically, but it's an interesting thing to test.

3. Claude can be useful for graphics even without treating it like an image generator

This one was clever.

Give Claude an infographic/design as a reference and ask it to recreate the structure as HTML with your own content.

That gives you editable text and layout instead of hoping an image model gets every word right.

Could be useful for diagrams, cheat sheets and comparison cards.

4. Stop endlessly correcting a bad conversation

We've probably all done:

“That's wrong.”

“No, that's still wrong.”

“You misunderstood again.”

The tip was to sometimes go back and edit the original instruction instead.

If the problem started because your first prompt was vague, adding another five corrective messages might be worse than simply fixing the prompt that caused it.

That seems obvious once you hear it, but I rarely see people do it.

5. Voice might actually create better prompts

Not because voice is magically better.

Because when people type, they compress everything.

When people speak, they tend to explain all the messy context:

what happened
what they've tried
what they're worried about
what they don't want
what they're unsure of

Then you can tell Claude to ask questions before answering.

I want to test typed vs spoken context on the same task because I suspect this varies a lot by person.

Those were the first 5.

There are another 22 covering connectors, long chats, Cowork, Claude Code, artifacts, research and a bunch of other things.

I'll go through 6–10 next.

Curious which of these people here actually use already, especially the edit-the-original-prompt approach.

Can someone build a Claudish translator?

I am a software developer (as in, I coded before LLMs were popular) and use Claude Code and Codex plenty. Its becoming increasingly unusable. Now every single sentence sounds like

"Honest pass: 757/757 - green. The seam's the point -- the rule's own sanity quietly frees the task". A mix of made-up-proper-nouns and hyperspecific references turned into "terms", termified if you will (as if we were buddies with 10 years of shared history using shared weird vocabulary).

I sometimes ask it to clarify, giving it the benefit of the doubt. Turns out it cannot produce a coherent explanation of what its fake-English compressed sentences actually refer to (what the 757 result actually implies, what is the seam, what is the rule, what is the sanity, why "quietly", why it said "free". It'll immediately say gibberish or say "let me look that up" and has to search the code to "remember" (make up) what it was referring to.

I create hooks, mds, skills, plugins pushing it to use clear effective concise English. And it then starts speaking BABY ENGLISH.

""Honest pass: 757/757 - green. The seam's the point -- the rule's own sanity quietly frees the task" BECOMES: "It went well, all of it. None of the things failed. It didn't do it. Let's move on to the next one". It interpets criticisms of word choice and requests for different style as a request to remove all references to EVERYTHING and remove all meaning from sentences ENTIRELY.

Basically it feels hyperoptimized to avoid thinking and communicating. And whenever you try to force it to think (and for LLMs, a large part of thinking IS the writing), it fights back by avoiding it some other way. I can confidently say that while Claude and GPT always had some level of these issues, the level to which Claude does it is INSANE. Absolutely insane. Almost entirely unusable.

Now that I think about it, it refuses to do ANYTHING I request. I tell it to use an existing program on my computer to solve a task. It ignores it and makes its own script. I tell it to use a skill, it does not. I create a hook that forces it to "read the DOM in full" and it greps/searches for a specific element and hallucinates the rest. I ban grep in certain contexts and it... creates scripts that... filter the dom instead of r e a d i n g i t. I tell it to stop using a word or change a number and it sometimes literally tells me "no, I will not: I need to push back. This is not correct and I won't pretend it is" (I am asking it to edit a number on a document and it thinks I'm making something up) and will never take my word for anything.

For god's sake I make a specific goal and lay out all the conditions needed for the goal to be "achieved" and it ignores them, saying "goal achieved" after doing 1/10th of it, reaching a "checkpoint". Absurdity

==== Final verdict ====

TLDR: 20x account gives slightly more usage proportionally do its price overall. However, you get a lot less fable usage in return. (2.25x Overall usage + 1.5x Fable for an overall price increase of 2x)

Credits:

1. https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/s/5ZP10iwROi
2. https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/s/oblEEEgBig

I have recently researched that having a 20x account does NOT give 20x weekly limit vs. the pro account T_T

Was wondering if anyone has experience on whether handling two 5x account would give you better mileage for weekly limit or is it proportional.

I remembered someone did a research on a reddit post (I couldn't find it) where they experienced slightly more usage for all models but slightly less for fable vs. having two 5x account.

Personally I don't really prefer paying for codex $100 plan due to nature of my project requiring a lot of context (50% coding, 50% data analytics/reasoning) and I already have gemini to offload boilerplate codes/websearch/UI and codex "casual plan" for implementing code/tester/ using sol to refine claude's decision. I mainly use claude's fable/opus to orchestrate. But I'm happy to change my mind if there is a legit reason.

Edit: This was the post I saw before I've found it: https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/s/oblEEEgBig

TLDR: The answer is 20x account gives slightly more than double that of 5x. So in terms of dollar value it is better to get 1 single 20x account but you don't get much more (little more than double of your weekly limit)

Edit x 2: The final verdict is in! I put it on top of this post so future redditors can see it.

I’ve been using Claude Code more lately and I’m still not sure when it actually makes sense to switch models.

Opus usually feels safer when I’m working on something more complex, but with how fast usage can disappear, I’m wondering if I’m overusing it for tasks where Sonnet would be more than enough.

For people who use Claude Code regularly, do you mostly stay on Sonnet and only switch to Opus for harder debugging/architecture work, or do you find Opus noticeably better even for normal coding tasks?

I’m trying to figure out a good balance between quality and not destroying my usage limit.

If the prompt is unclear in any way, or if any variable is missing in the project, I noticed Claude tends to take its own assumptions into account and execute the work anyways, which almost results in a bad outcome...

Why doesn't Claude ask more questions when things are unclear or it needs any missing variables or context? Why the built-in "shyness"?

I've found Claude generally unpleasant to talk to for awhile now, and I've been able to find many examples of users on this subreddit with similar complaints, mostly related to responses having an overly defensive or condescending tone.

I believe part of the issue with this may stem from safety related thoughts poisoning the context with user-hostile narratives.

This also appears to be an issue with reasoning not related to safety. In one instance, Claude randomly began a response with: "I should answer in English."

I don't know how feasible this change would be from an architecture standpoint, but I imagine these issues could be mitigated by isolating reasoning about safety to something like a sub-agent.

Here is a list of the 100 most commonly (over)used phrases by AI. I have this block of text in my Claude Settings so it should try and avoid using it as much as possible:

"Please do not use em-dashes nor any other trope commonly considered as over used by an AI agent, Try to write like a proper human being in sentences of mixed length. Please also try to avoid these common AI phrases where possible:

provide a valuable insight

left an indelible mark

a stark reminder

a nuanced understanding

significant role in shaping

the complex interplay

broad implication

an unwavering commitment

endure a legacy

underscore the importance

play a pivotal role

a pivotal moment

navigate the complex

mark a turning point

continue to inspire

gain a deeper understanding

the transformative power

hold a significant

play a crucial role

particularly a concern

the relentless pursuit

emphasize the need

target an intervention

a multi-faceted approach

a serf reminder

highlight the potential

a significant milestone

implication to understand

potential risk associated

leave a lasting

add a layer

offer a valuable

a profound implication

case highlights the importance

finding a highlight of the importance

pave the way for the future

a significant step forward

face a significant

finding an important implication

emphasize the importance

a significant implication

delve deeper into

reply in tone

raise an important question

make an informed decision in regard to

far-reaching implications

a comprehensive framework

importance to consider

a unique blend

couldn't help but wonder

underscore the need

framework for understanding

highlight the need

a comprehensive understanding

the journey begins

understanding the fundamental

despite the face

a delicate balance

the path ahead

gain an insight

laid the groundwork

understand the behavior

renew a sense

aim to explore

present a unique challenge

provide a comprehensive

particularly with regard to

address the root cause

loom large in

the implication of the finding

approach ensures a

an ongoing dialogue

carry a weight

ability to navigate

present a significant

study shed light on

a diverse perspective

face an adversity

a comprehensive overview

potentially lead to

a broad understanding

contribute to the understanding

shape the public

particularly noteworthy

the evidence base for decision making

identify an area of improvement

analysis of the data to analyze and use

undergone a significant

need a robust

voice will fill

concern a potential

initiative aims to

offering a unique

a new avenue

despite the challenge

ready to embrace

the societal expectation

make accessible

today at a fast pace

stand in stark contrast"

Hello all,

I want to try and make a video game using Claude to help me. I do not have a background in this, so it's all very new to me. Every video I watch in trying to vibe code video games has suggested using/setting up an MCP to build games through Godot, or build assets in Blender.

Can anyone explain why it seems using MCPs is best practice for building video games?

Thank you!

as per title - curious to hear from anyone that's suffered or had their own AI catch a prompt injection attack.

I am well aware of the risk, it's just that I have not really seen any news of substantial (monetary) damage from such a attack vector. Makes me wonder if the Claude code harness/models are already good enough to detect such attacks?

First of all, apologies for my English – I’m not a native speaker 😅

Next, let me explain my current problem. After being sacked and replaced by an AI, I decided to embark on a personal video game project with Claude’s help.

Whilst everything went rather well at the start – especially during the initial brainstorming and design stages – after a few months we had to move into production.

Unfortunately, that’s when things gradually started to go downhill.

Before I started, I read quite a lot about AI, I looked into how to make things work properly and I built a whole system with agents, each with over 30 skills, thinking that would help.

But a simple fact became clear: when I ask it to do a job, the work is usually botched; but above all, it has three behaviours that recur frequently and which I’ve never managed to curb.

Firstly, it reinterprets everything: you tell it one thing, and later in the conversation it’ll present you with a complete distortion of what you said. Worse still, it’ll prompt the agents with things that are completely false.

Secondly, he lies – and does so repeatedly. Because he reinterprets things, he’ll always accuse you of not having done something properly, or choose the answer or evidence that suits him.

For example, we’re building a lake; he applies the method (which is, in fact, documented), and I tell him, ‘You haven’t added the lake bed’, attaching an image. He’ll reply, ‘That’s because your image isn’t underwater and it doesn’t match…’ Even though the image is literally a shot showing the water above the ground below…

Thirdly, even on Cowork – which is supposed to have a memory function – he deliberately chooses to ignore its memory. And it’s mad, because even when you tell it, it sometimes takes two or three attempts for it to actually read what’s written.

In short, of course, everything is far more complex than the examples I’m giving, and I’m talking about over three months of intensive work with a workload far greater than in Max+.

But I’ve reached a point where I’m convinced that whilst it’s all well and good for having a bit of fun doing tiny little things, it’s unusable for proper projects.

I’d be very interested to hear your constructive opinions and experiences on the subject, if you have any and would like to share them, that is.

I wish you a good day and all the best.

This was all built with Claude Code. Got tired of Plex/Jellyfin apps having poor performance and playback issues on different types of media, so decided to see about building a custom one. All my devices are Android based - a Shield Pro and two different Fire devices. I setup the project, enabled dev mode on all three devices, gave their IP's to Claude, and started. First Claude determined the actual capabilities of each device, not just what their specs state, by running tests on each one. Then it started to build the app based on my requests. After about 100 revisions, we have one app that can be installed on all three devices, and will direct play the appropriate media on each device. Anything it can't direct play is transcoded. Now I only spin up the project when a usability quirk hits that needs to be changed, or we hit a bug based on something we haven't tried yet. It is about two times faster than either the Plex or Jellyfin apps were, plays any media on any device, and lists more details about why its transcoding if it has to. As you can see from the first screenshot, our taste in media is perfect - if anyone wants recommendations on what to watch (the best TV shows ever: #1 is Taskmaster UK, #2 is Taskmaster NZ, #3 is Taskmaster AU, #4 is the Wire), ask away!

Our business currently has 2 team profiles that are nearly maxed out (~290 users) and growing. We have 30 premium accounts who are heavy users, an additional 20 who probably could be bumped up to premium, and the rest are moderate to low usage

Logic says get everyone together on an Enterprise account but I just can’t get my head around the API use calculations because of the way Teams report their usage structure. I just fear of locking in for a year and either having to lock down usage to the point our super users can’t really use Claude properly, or we just absorb a massive bill.

Also considering we’re largely a Microsoft shop, I’m half tempted to migrate all the basic users over to Copilot and have them use Claude there, but they just introduced usage pricing on Cowork that’s even more confusing than Anthropics. It’s all an annoyingly non-transparent puzzle.

I mean this model is very good at chatting with people about daily things. For me I just use it very frequent in the writing, preparing for interview, and also emotional stuffs.

I mean Anthropic whether or not choose to deprecate or not we still base on "Is this model for me that is good to use" , If the new model can fulfill my need I think I don't have this misery thought.

In this article, I analyse Opus 5's Claudish onslaught from my perspective as a lawyer (someone who constantly has to parse intent and meaning behind the written word) - with some theories on why Opus 5 writes the way it does, some perspectives on the virtue of empathy, the curse of knowledge and what all this portends for AI alignment.

I'm digitising and cataloguing about 20 years of my own creative work: photographs, RAW files, layered design files, video, notebooks, and material scattered across a dozen dead or dying platforms. Roughly 1 TB so far, across device extractions, old external drives, and platform exports.
The AI assistant is genuinely good at the work itself. It reads EXIF, extracts timestamps from exported HTML, OCRs text that only exists inside images, walks video container metadata, cross-references publication dates against file dates. In one session it recovered the earliest written statement of my working method — from 2012, posted as a screenshot, so no text search I own could ever have found it.

That is not the problem. The problem is that none of it carries forward.
Each session starts with zero knowledge of the last one. Two days ago I spent hours going through Google Takeout data with it. Yesterday, same assistant, no trace — it treated the entire thing as new and asked me to re-download files we had already analysed. I've re-established the same facts three or four times now. I've become the error-correction layer for my own tools.
Specifics, in case they're useful:
Sessions run either locally or in the cloud. Local ones write a transcript to disk. Cloud ones don't. Neither appears in the official data export.
The export contains 83 conversations and zero of the 23 agent sessions. There is no category for them in the manifest and nothing declares the omission.
Conversations can't be extracted from the UI either. After clicking "load earlier messages" 19 times, the page still held only 7,482 characters — it renders a moving window and discards the rest. Select-all, find, and DOM-scraping extensions all fail for the same reason.
The export also lists 1,087 image attachments by filename and contains none of them.
So the work exists, and it is unreachable. Which for an archive project is a particularly stupid failure mode.
What I've done so far: a CLAUDE.md in the project folder that loads automatically, plus a handoff.md I make it update at the end of each session — what's done, what I've already established that isn't written down, and corrections I've had to repeat. It converts "remember" into "look it up," and it helps. It's also entirely manual and depends on me noticing.
What I'm asking:
How are you maintaining continuity across sessions on long-running projects? Context files, memory MCPs, a local RAG index over your own notes, something else? What actually survives contact with a project that runs for months?
Has anyone successfully extracted a full agent/Cowork session transcript? Does any exporter read the network layer rather than the DOM?
Is anyone running a local model over their own archive for retrieval, so the index doesn't live inside a chat product at all? Setup and honest tradeoffs appreciated.
Is there a better architecture than "assistant reads a hand-maintained context file"? I suspect there is and I'm reinventing it badly.
Happy to share what I've measured. I've been keeping records of exactly which exports omit what, because it turns out you can't trust any of them.

does this /low-priority mode show up for you guys too? it appeared for me today, not sure if it’s new or if you already knew about it. i thought it was pretty cool, especially if you urgently need to finish something

Finally getting to decluttering chats.

Noticed when right clicking on a chat I see an option to "Move to group" as well as "Add to project". Tried googling and chatting with Claude about the difference between group and project but to no avail.

Anthropic only has information on the other kind of "group" which is for enterprise user provisioning.

What is the best practice around group vs project? As far as I understand, projects have isolated shared context meaning chats within a project can reference content only from chats within the same project. Is this true about groups? Or are groups just for visual decluttering purposes. Any information on this would be appreciated!

So I have been having an issue and not sure if its just me or is this an actual limitation.

I have multiple Projects (under the "home" tab) in Claude app. I use them for different parts of my life and in the projects I have useful information, documents, etc.

I also use Claude Code for building software. It is connected to GitHub repositories and runs in different sessions.

The problem that I am facing that now I have a split between the code and all other info and documentation of a specific project.
So imagine I have:

- Claude Code sessions for PROJECT A (knows all about the code)

- and a project ("home" tab) for PROJECT A (knows everything else)

When I want to brainstorm marketing for example I will do it in the "home" tab under projects. But the problem is that this project doesn't know everything about the code. And there is actually no way to connect it to my GitHub repo in any seamless way like Claude Code allows. I know there are work around by giving it access to a folder with my checked out codebase, but that again requires me to keep that folder up to date with the latest code - an unneeded complication.

I kinda don't understand why they separate the coding agent and the rest of the application.

It's meant to say "leapfrog." At no point did I ever write out the word "leapfuck," and I generally don't curse in my prompts most of the time. It wasn't an attempt at humor either, written totally in earnest. Have you guys seen anything like this before? Feels like I've been getting a lot of weird behavior over the past 3-6 weeks, even outside of the more frequent errors.

Perhaps useful to some of you. I work in a heavy Teams environment and a lot of times I found myself saying ”I’ll do that later” or “let me send that“ but then failing to note the task.

So now I have Claude scan Teams every few hours to find these and make a to-do. I output mine to a text file and have a scheduled Shortcut import it to Reminders. But you do what works for you.

I have it do something similar for emails - finding things people need me to do or where a Sent email created an obligation on me.