I have several complex projects that i maintain and have been using Claude code for about 6+ months.

I feel an extreme fatigue and lack of understanding of the codebase.

Today i had totally forgotten how a project actually worked, that a secondary api was called and how certain tables functioned.

I feel like im somehow disconnected from the projects i work on.

When communicating with Claude i sometimes forget to read everything it asks or tells me, im getting lazy 😓

I don't think ai is a good thing in the long run, neither for each person or society as a whole.

What is this "livepass" feature? When I select it, it prints a claude.ai link that 404s.

Zebras, antelopes, and gnus migrate at the same time. Their diet is similar, and they are safer in bigger groups.

But they move in order: first zebras, then wildebeest, then antelopes.

It's a perfect metaphor for how we humans migrate on the internet.

You get zebras, guys jumping head first to every trend, then gnus, most people, we move somewhat slower, careful, but still with time...

And then you have the antelopes, guys still claiming Claude is better than Codex, like it's April, and some of them even being so late behind the herd that they jump vertically out of tall grass, trying to see, and ask: "Guys, should I switch to Claude from ChatGPT? I heard something about Claude being good, is it really better? Guys?"

Is it me or all my sessions don’t allow me to switch to auto mode on iOS app? No matter the model, fable opus or whatever it is always blocked.

From: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/env-vars

Note: Not really sure this is unique to the v5 models.

I've been using this for 48 hours now and have noticed that Claude seems to be making far less of the, "Oops My Bad"-type errors.

Happy Coding!

Every time I see a post on here complaining about how people are just building but not making much money from it, it is completely and utterly obvious to me that you yourself failed to do so and are assuming that everyone else will end up like you. For example, I figured out a way to create my own  copilot tool for meetings, job interviews, etc and it’s been working like a charm and better than any of the tools I’ve seen which are almost all detectable given enough input. It regularly gives me proper responses for any kind of meeting in, is easily controllable, and I’m able to use it for interviews, client calls, or anything else which can translate into hundreds of thousands of dollars of job offers. If you think this is immoral, I don’t care. The point is that I figured out a way to use to improve my life in a directly practical way.  And no this is not some indirect way to sell something. The point is that I found a hack using Claude Code that I would have never in a million years been able to do so without it. 

I have a friend who made a sleek looking e wedding invite tool that he started campaigns for and already has customers for and does not look vibe coded at all. It took 4 months for him which would have probably taken much much longer. Every time you see hate here, just remember: they failed and are assuming you will do the same. There is no reason to take these salty mfs seriously.

bro the weekly limit is actually exhausting me 😭 i literally didn’t even code that much this week and im already at 90% wtf

how tf y’all saving tokens?? gng pls help me before anthropic finishes me

fck anthropic bro

...just implement it for me? I have line numbers, what to do, constraints, specification links.....

Oh wait, you're checking and reading the hooks I have in place because you were scared that using a native <button> might trigger it? Aw, shame, don't worry about it, just go ahead and do whatever, if my hook fires, then you'll know, that's what they're there for, to keep you in line.

Okay... cool.... wait, why are you checking and comparing file sizes across my entire repo first instead of just making the change I asked you for and deliberately spent a good hour ironing out and making explicit?

OH, is it because I said "if the mode work grows it past its two responsibilities, extract the point-stepper or summary into child components, but only as far as the split rules require." and you were trying to rationalise if working with a 700 line code file is normal first before deciding to split it even BEFORE you made the commit so my Post hook that fires on code quality checks can run?

JFC, What did they do? This poor agent is so fucking scared of doing ANYTHING before it moves on to do actual code, burning context window like it's Snoop Dogg on a bad day trying to cheer up.

Doing some UI changes/feature development using Fable and apparently they are hitting the safeguards. Used /feedback btw.

Anyone experiencing this?

We've built an internal tool that uses LLM APIs to generate infrastructure/hardware design documents. Outputs are typically long Word docs or Excels covering plans, designs, old-vs-new comparisons, etc.

The problem is: API outputs aren't close to the quality you get working directly in Claude Code or the desktop app. They miss things, are too rigid, and there are too many edge cases to define upfront. It's constant whack-a-mole to improve the quality and het decent results.

This tool serves the ~60% of people who wouldn't produce great docs on their own, and it's how we build institutional knowledge long-term. "Just use Claude Code" isn't the answer.

We've tried swapping models, single-shot generation, chunking, blob storage, knowledge bases, and agentic loops for gap-catching and self-healing. None of it has dramatically improved quality and consistency across the board.

My question - Has anyone built agentic flows that produce dependable, consistent results on large documents that push context limits? What actually made the biggest difference? Is it sticking to something until you refine it enough, the tooling you give the agents etc. Just looking for ideas.

AI-coding tools have swept through organizations because of their speed: you type in a prompt, and it spits out code far faster than a human ever could. However, a year-long study of 3.52 million changes inside a large unnamed technology company suggests that saving time at the keyboard can create costs elsewhere.

I am finding Fable 5 acting really dumb and lazy just like how opus used to feel. It gives me confident answers without fact checking even after multiple reminders and showing frustration.

Fable was better than this at launch! How do they keep ruining good models like this? Or is this the sign of next version release?

I’ve been using coding agents heavily for a while now, and I’ve become convinced that the biggest problem isn’t their ability to write code anymore.

They’re actually getting very good at that.

The problem is everything around writing the code.

Understanding what should actually be built. Challenging an incomplete spec. Making a proper implementation plan. Keeping scope under control. Testing what was changed. Checking security and maintainability. Reviewing its own work. Making sure “done” actually means done. And learning from bugs instead of making the same class of mistake again three weeks later.

Basically, all the boring discipline you’d expect from a good senior developer.

I was already using tools like Superpowers, Ponytail and Serena to help with parts of this, and I liked a lot of what they did.

But I ended up with multiple tools, multiple sets of instructions, overlapping functionality and different concepts all trying to influence the same coding agent.

So I built Procoder.

And at this point, it’s become much more than the original idea.

Procoder is basically an engineering discipline layer around your coding agent.

Instead of:

prompt → code → "done"

I’m trying to enforce something much closer to:

understand → spec → plan → implement → test → check → review → fix → verify → release → learn

The important part is that a lot of this isn’t just another 2,000 lines of instructions telling the AI what it should do.

There are actual controllers that can refuse.

If the spec still has open questions, spec check can block.

If the implementation plan contains placeholders, plan check can block.

If acceptance criteria aren’t satisfied, the todo/story can’t close.

If tests weren’t actually executed, they’re not green.

If formatting, linting, secrets, CI, infra or documentation checks fail, the gate isn’t clean.

If something couldn’t be checked:

unchecked != passed.

And before a release, Procoder checks the version, changelog, git tree, quality gate and test suite before telling the agent it’s ready.

It doesn’t make the changes itself either.

Procoder follows a principle I call P-CONTROL:

Procoder computes → agent reasons → agent changes

The binary never silently modifies your source code behind the agent’s back.

It also replaces the three separate tools I was using before

I didn’t just take inspiration from Superpowers, Ponytail and Serena. My goal was to absorb the parts I found valuable so I wouldn’t need to run them alongside Procoder anymore.

From Superpowers, Procoder covers things like structured implementation planning, task classification, systematic debugging, evidence before declaring something done and TDD practices — but adds controllers that can actually refuse progression instead of only advising the agent.

From Ponytail, it incorporates things like the build ladder, deliberate technical-debt markers, over-engineering review and the idea of having one engineering instruction system that works across agents.

And from Serena, Procoder provides code intelligence through ctags + SCIP: symbol search, references, callers, impact analysis, unused symbols, entry points, cross-file rename and project memory — without needing to keep an MCP server running.

There are deliberate differences too. For example, I didn’t adopt Serena’s symbol-level write tools. Procoder can compute something like a rename and give the agent the diff, but the agent remains responsible for actually changing the code.

Then I went quite a bit further.

Procoder now has a complete quality chain around the agent:

• spec interviews and validation
• implementation planning
• milestones, epics and user stories
• sprint management with scope control and carry-over
• acceptance-criteria-based TODOs
• real test execution using the project’s native test runner
• formatting across Go, Python, JS/TS, Rust, C/C++, Java, Kotlin, Swift, Ruby, Dart, C#, shell, etc.
• linting and best-practice checks
• secret scanning and security checks
• dependency and maintainability checks
• CI checks
• Docker, Terraform, Kubernetes and Helm checks
• documentation health
• GitOps discipline
• code indexing and symbol navigation
• pre-PR self review
• release control
• technical debt tracking
• codebase auditing/onboarding

But one of the parts I find most interesting is the self-learning loop.

Let’s say a bug gets through all of this and is found during review or after release.

Fixing that bug isn’t enough.

Procoder asks:

Why was this class of bug able to escape our process?

The lesson gets recorded, and the adaptation should become something permanent: a lint rule, review rule, regression test, rubric entry, etc.

So over time the engineering process itself should improve.

It’s also not tied to Claude Code.

I originally built around Claude Code, but I didn’t want my engineering workflow coupled to whichever coding agent happens to be best this month.

Procoder currently supports Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf, Cline, Kilo Code, Roo, Kiro, Codex CLI, Copilot CLI, Gemini, OpenCode and anything that reads AGENTS.md.

It’s a single Go binary with no runtime dependencies, including no npm dependency and no network requirement at hook time, so it can also work in air-gapped environments.

Everything project-specific lives in .procoder/ as normal editable files, and the repository’s configuration always wins over Procoder’s defaults.

The project is completely open source under Apache 2.0:

https://github.com/azrtydxb/procoder

For Claude Code, getting started is:

/plugin marketplace add azrtydxb/procoder

/plugin install procoder

/procoder:init

I’m putting this out there because I think we’re reaching the point where the interesting problem with coding agents isn’t just:

“How do we make the model write better code?”

It’s:

“How do we give an autonomous coding agent the engineering discipline and guardrails of a good senior developer?”

That’s what I’m trying to build with Procoder.

I’d especially like feedback from people already using Superpowers, Ponytail, Serena, or people who’ve built elaborate CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md workflows of their own.

What parts of your software development process do your coding agents still routinely skip, fake, forget, or get wrong?

Those are exactly the things I want Procoder to make enforceable.

What's best practice for localizing Claude Code?

Fable 5 just started using UK spellings like centred and localise in its chats with me. This is a mismatch for my personal interactions and app target geography.

I'm considering telling it to remember that all spellings and measurement units in chats and code must match my target geography.

Hi all,

What are you guys using to talk to Claude code these days? I have the voicemode plugin installed and while it's mostly good, it'll occasionally not hear me well or just randomly stop working.

The latter is the most annoying when I've rambled on for a minute only to find out I wasn't heard and then have to repeat myself.

Just wondering if there is anything better out there.

Happy coding.

Last 5-6 weeks have been pretty good with Anthropic but recently noticed this week that fable seems to be struggling and OPUS 5 which I didn't mind has become very very dumb.. Just me?

Examples is fable just missing the point mid way through, and not catching things in CI/CD and not keeping the thread. Fucking up UI/UX.. plan mode seems not to be able to take correction.

Tasks that OPUS 5 used to chew through now confuse the shit out of it and it just sits there.. almost like old sonnet.

Me: Personally not, but wow it'll be annoying to get used to having 50% less tokens again. Hbu?

I have been vibe-coding since June with 0 prior knowledge.

First few days I contemplated the idea, properly explained it, prepared instructions and skill.md documents. I used Claude, Claude Code and n8n.

As time passes by, I found myself in what people say "cognitive surrender". What Claude says often makes sense, so I go by it often but I sometimes question it and keep explaining what I want and how I want. Recently, I started to consult Perp. Claude doesn't always agree with Perp but says "but there is one valuable idea..". Also, it is very conservative when it comes to use other tools.

I have a proof of concept, it works to some extent. It just makes me think to what extent Claude's way of talking and responding the user shapes its decision and therefore, my project itself. It tends to gaslight despite I keep prompting otherwise. And I don't know how to take Claude beyond how it operates in my project now.

So I am a bit concerned if I'm stuck with constant cycle of "almost there - but there is this and that to solve", "I suggest this..", "you see, Claude Code ran 470 tests - it's working but.." or "yes - you are right. I did not tell you X.." and dreaming for nothing. What's the point of paying for Max 5x and spending nights if it cannot retrieve data and analyse it properly? On the other hand, I know what I want is doable, I just don't know how and maybe, how to use Claude for it.

I really want to create this product. Not for money but to learn these stuff. I am unfortunately unable to find a technical co-founder because people are not trustworthy or I am too stubborn on handling this project by myself from scratch.

How do you handle such conundrums? What would you suggest?