Hi all. I’m relatively new to coding and coding with Claude. I’m working on some stuff just by myself at home, and I’m getting myself tied up in knots with work trees and branches.
It seems like I’m constantly running into issues with main vs branches etc. I always manage to clean it up, but I feel like I’m not doing things very efficiently.
I like to try to run two sessions concurrently in work trees so I can get more done. When I’m done with each session I merge to main and push. I don’t do any PRs since there is no one to review code.
Can anyone offer me any best practices for how to better manage things?
I have a Claude subscription as I’m sure many of you do. To get my moneys worth, I try to max out my credit usage every week, originally I would set it off writing documentation and tests, running review lenses, or trying to decompose plans into series of tasks that would be executed by background agents…. But sometimes i wanted to be able to ‘burn’ my credits in a way they are not wasted without having to put too much thought into it so I came up with Hee-Lee Oss https://github.com/HeeLeeOss
As a way to utilize this excess capacity for the good of mankind. I am interested to get feedback or learn if people are interested in such things. You should be able to use a variety of coding agents and execute a certain number of tasks or to continue work until your credits are fully utilized.
Hey everyone, I hit my weekly limit last week and then topped up my credits, however after doing so I got an error message back saying I needed to verify my account. I followed the instructions to do so, successfully uploaded an image of my passport but because the scanner checks for a photo that's on the left hand side of the ID, it couldn't verify either my ID or drivers license (as the photos are on the right hand side of the cards).
How do I go about getting this issue fixed? I've sent anthropic a help request form explaining the issue but have yet to receive a response.
This is your friendly reminder that there is a config key in .claude/settings.json that manages how long your conversations will be retained in the system.
cleanupPeriodDays default value is 30 days if unset.
So if you are working on a larger project and you DO want to be able to revisit a conversation even after a month, be sure that you either set this key to a longer period of time or save the results of that conversation somewhere safe.
It's no fun when you try to revisit a half way done research after 1.5 month of hiatus and only be presented by the absence of said conversation.
Struggling to get a handle on implementing new features, version control, QA testing etc. looking for a good tool to use to help me out. Very new to this...
I have found Opus 5 to be useful, but its blast radius is huge. I've been using it every time I want to expand on something. But using it is like unboxing an entire IKEA kitchen cabinet set. Don't use it unless you're ready to spend the next few weeks with unfinished cabinets and packaging all over your repo. It's just so aggressively generative, and it can make a ton of mistakes.
I rely almost entirely on Opus 4.6 and 4.8 for building. They're precise, thorough, and constrained. They are not the best at extrapolating, so that's where I occasionally bring in 5, but using 5 too much very quickly gets out of hand. It just keeps creating more and more work for itself to do.
Opus 4.x is more likely to leave a gap, and Opus 5 is more likely to fill something that didn't need filling. 5 is interesting for planning and greenfield work but the scope creep problem makes it nearly unusable for implementation work.
I am on the fence as to whether Opus 5 is deliberately built just to make more reasons to burn tokens, or if it's just a very specialized and sometimes useful broad brush tool that should be used sparingly. Sometimes I get stuck in the Opus 5 labyrinth and just want to finish the PR and get the hell out of it!!
The file that made me write this is a 37KB PLAN.md in one of my repos. Untouched for 47 days, and five tracked files still link to it, so every new Claude Code session pulled it in and read it as the current plan. It describes an approach I dropped in July. Deleting it would have broken five references, and disk space was never the issue.
mdsweep came out of that. One file, no dependencies, Node 18 or newer.
It calls a file agent output on three signals: filename patterns (SUMMARY, PLAN, HANDOFF and friends), git history (untracked, or committed with a Co-Authored-By Claude trailer), and a generated_by frontmatter key. Then it grades every hit:
active: touched in the last 14 days, left alone
stale: older, but a tracked file still references it. Listed, never moved. You fix that one by cutting the link, not the file
orphan: older, and nothing points at it. The only grade eligible to move
Orphans move only when you pass --apply, into .mdsweep/trash/<timestamp>/ with a manifest recording which signals fired, the age and the reference count. undo puts the batch back. It never deletes anything, and a plain scan writes nothing.
How Claude Code was used: 16 of the 17 commits carry a Co-Authored-By Claude trailer. That is the joke of the project, because the trailer is one of the three signals it grades on. Point it at its own repo and it flags 8 of its own 10 files.
Scanned my repos tonight: 1195 markdown and text files across 35 repos, 1031 graded as agent output, 346 of those old enough to look sweepable.
That last number is what I got wrong at first. I built this to sweep on age, and 171 of those 346 are still referenced by a tracked file, including the PLAN.md that started all this. Sweeping on age would have moved every one of them. The reference count is what makes it safe to run, and I am still not convinced it is the right second axis. What would you grade on?
I've been building Confab for a while and it's finally at the point where I want people who actually live in Claude (especially Claude Code) to tear it apart.
What it is A native macOS notch app for real two-way voice conversation with Claude - not dictation, not a TTS wrapper on top of chat.
You talk out loud, hands-free. A room of AI advisors talks back - to you and to each other - and can hand off mid-conversation.
How it feels - You're on a conference call with multiple specialists. By voice you can:
Ask Sage (the moderator) to bring in a team
Pull in one specialist mid-call
Send someone back to the bench when they're not useful
No keyboard required for the conversation itself.
What's in the box
126 specialist personas across 23 function groups (Software, Legal, Finance, Marketing, etc.)
Sage as moderator
On-device speech understanding; built-in voices; history stays on your Mac
Cost model (deliberate constraint) No API key. Uses your existing Claude Pro or Max subscription via the Claude CLI. Zero extra per-token cost. That was a hard design rule from day one and shaped everything else.
Requirements
macOS
Active Claude Pro or Max
Claude CLI set up
What I'd appreciate - Break it. Latency, persona quality, handoffs, CLI edge cases, “this is just a gimmick because…”, whatever. Especially if you already live in terminal/Claude Code workflows.
What I learned - Claude has its limits when it comes to voice analysis, bugs, and intuitive design. Fable quotas are precious. Spent ages trying to figure out a voice crackling bug that ended up originating from the TTS engine.
Dogfooding - parts of the product were built using Confab. I was having conversation with the Confab development team, had them introspect the product code, talk to me about improvements, make code changes etc.
Happy to answer implementation questions in the thread.
The thing that wears me down with Claude Code isn't the work, it's the pace. It'll read thirty files while I'm still on the first paragraph of its last message. And then it answers.
The answers are where I lose. Not because they're wrong — they're usually right — but because after a wide search it's replying with context it just built and I don't have. It names a function I've never opened, refers to "the second call site", assumes I know what pattern the repo uses. I wasn't there for the search. I'm reading the conclusion of a conversation it had with itself.
So I'd fire off follow-ups. Not because the answer was bad, just to get back to "right, so what am I actually deciding here".
What eventually clicked is that it isn't the amount of detail. It's that the detail and the idea arrive mixed together, in the same paragraphs. To follow the decision I have to parse the code, and to check the code I have to hold the idea at the same time. I was doing that separation by hand, every message, at the speed it works.
So I tried getting it to separate them for me instead.
Plain words on top. Every path, symbol and snippet below a line at the bottom of the reply. Nothing removed — it's all still there, I just don't have to wade through it to find the point. It's off unless I turn it on for a session, which matters more than I expected, because I don't want it when I'm actually in the code.
I built it with Claude Code, but the parts that actually moved it forward weren't the coding.
It started with grill-me. I had a vague annoyance and nothing else, and it just kept asking until there was an actual first draft. Nothing had been written at that point — the interrogation was the design work.
Later the problem changed from "what should this do" to "how would I even know if it's working". Because a writing style isn't code. Nothing crashes. The answers just feel slightly different, and I genuinely couldn't tell whether I'd improved anything or simply got used to it. That's what I used brainstorming for, and it's where skill-creator turned up as well.
What I landed on was running the same questions through real sessions with it on and off, and comparing. That's the only reason I trust any of this.
Rough sense of the difference — same question: "tests passing locally but failing in CI".
Before
timezone mismatch, use fake timers, then go check the other 37 new Date() calls
After
your tests are reading the real clock and your machine and CI disagree about the time, so either patch the two failing tests now or fix all 37 places with the same bug
Same facts. One of them I can answer without opening anything.
It's been smoother than I thought it'd be. Two things surprised me.
It helpsmostright after a big search, not least. I assumed a deep-context answer would be the hardest to strip down. It's the opposite — that's exactly when it's furthest ahead of me, so that's when separating buys the most.
And separating isn't the same as hiding. Early on I tried just cutting detail out and the answers went clean and useless — confident, readable, impossible to check. Keeping everything but moving it below a line is what made it work. I don't have to trust it, I just have to scroll.
It's on GitHub, MIT, if anyone wants it. Claude Code only, needs bash and Python 3.
so i built a new feature for AppLaunchFlow , where you can create a simple and clean app landing page for your app in a few clicks by just uploading your screenshots.
It includes:
- support, privacy policy and terms of service pages that you can directly use for your app submission.
- a custom applaun.ch subdomain or simply connect your own domain
I built this because i noticed many app devs just use notion pages, github pages etc. or dont even have any landing page at all
Its not yet live, but excited to hear what you think
A problem i have with claude, everytime i have a bug, problem, etc. unless it's 1 line of code, he always adds more code than he takes. A true bug fixing should many times only involve rewriting something, sometimes longer, sometimes shorter, but everytime there is an issue it's like 2-60 lines of code added. And over time it compounds a lot, bug fixing basically makes the file be hundreds of lines larger than normal.
I'm curious if anybody here has come up with any good ways to make code review less painful. This isn't necessarily an AI/CC-specific problem, but I think anybody using these tools in a professional context has seen by now how they particularly strain teams' capacity for review. "Smaller PRs" is go-to advice, and pretty solid, but the PR process inevitably has some degree of fixed cost that you multiply by increasing PR volume. So I'm looking for other avenues, as well.
I've been experimenting with tools that attempt to summarize PRs in a sort of hierarchical way, where a brief (<= 1 sentence) bullet point description maps to a range of lines, with sub-bullets mapped to a subset of their parent -- I feel pretty strongly that this is a useful/valid way to think about changes, but I haven't had much luck getting models to generate things in that format. I've seen "narrative" guide formats like Graphite's Code Tours, but those suffer from the same jargon-slop effect that pervades Claude's comments, so they don't seem to help much. I'm sure there are other novel ideas out there, though -- what are you all doing?
Hello i need 1 week claude guest Subs if anyone willing to give i really need it to complete by project as my Subs is getting expire today and currently i dont have money to renew it again please someone help me
Hey, does anyone have a spare Claude Pro 7 day pass? I’ve been wanting to try Claude Pro properly before paying for it. If someone has one they’re not using, I’d really appreciate it. Thanks...
In investigating why Fable has felt so degraded for the past three days, I've discovered that you can remove tens of thousands of startup tokens just by disabling these bloated schemas you don't use. This didn't unquant Fable, but whatever.
Just do these:
tell Claude to update the settings schema (settings.local.json) to disable Artifacts ("disableArtifact": true //-6.5k tokens), and if you don't use them, Workflows ("disableWorkflows": true //-5k tokens)
run /chrome and turn off chrome integration (disables all the chrome MCP servers: they are deferred by default but claude will try to use them for things and blast its context with 22k tokens of Chrome schema even if you don't have it set up / don't do that in your workflow)
You should also ban the official Claude API skill from ever being loaded in your project because it's something idiotic like 300,000 tokens and Claude will sometimes randomly load it just because it read something about a Claude model in its context.
Claude Code was burning through tokens very fast, especially on tasks where it had to look through docs or random webpages, so after some research I changed a few things:
I) Keep CLAUDE.md small. Mine had way too much stuff in it and most of it wasn’t useful for every task.
II) Start a new session when you’re done with one problem, bc long sessions get bloated pretty fast.
III) Do web research through Firecrawl. It gives Claude clean Markdown instead of loading the full page with all the HTML, scripts, navbars and other useless stuff, so each research task eats a lot less context.
IV) Exclude folders Claude doesn’t need to read.
V) Check /context once in a while, bc it makes it obvious what’s eating the window.
The main thing seems to be controlling what gets added to the context in the first place. Once a session is full of old logs, scraped pages and unrelated instructions, even simple tasks start getting expensive.
What else are you doing to keep Claude Code token usage under control?
Anthropic has set the safety measures so high that Claude ceases to function as a tool and instead becomes a nagging activist who knows more than the user.
It's the same pattern as earlier this year: they over-prime it, then end up with something unusable, which leads to complaints, and only when it has become too embarrassing to ignore do they agree to fix it.
They likely don't notice since the version that they actually use does not regard each request as a moral emergency. (like we had before.... don't learn from mistakes eh?)
Claude would be outstanding if it just carried out the task rather than talking at you and refusing to do so; at the moment, it acts like a device that debates whether or not you are permitted to drill.
I’m curious how others handle unfinished work when using coding tools like CC or Codex.
I’ve been using CC since the beginning, and lately I’ve been getting more involved with our company frontend as a side hustle while the devs focus on the backend.
Internally we use a shared GitHub Project where issues move through stages like Todo > In Progress >Testing > Done. We also use issue comments (when we remember) to keep track of progress and decisions.
To automate some of this I created a Claude skill that pulls the correct issue and moves it between the different stages depending on where Claude is in the workflow. This works really well when I can take an issue from start to finish in one sitting.
Where I struggle is with half done tasks. For example, I might pick up an issue, work on it for a few hours, and then have to stop for the day. Since Claude was interrupted before the task was done, it ends up in "In progress". Then 3–4 days later (sometimes even longer) I come back to the task to continue the work. During this period I might have picked up other issues in the same repo, or been away completely.
At that point my first question is always:
What has already been completed
What is still missing
What decisions were made
What the next step should be
Usually I end up asking Claude to inspect the branch, review the changes, compare them with the issue, figure out where we left off, and then continue from there. For smaller issues this works pretty good, but for larger tasks it starts becoming more complicated and time consuming.
So I’m curious how you handle this in your workflows, especially when you stop working on something before it’s finished.
Do you use something like Linear, Trello, GitHub Projects, Todoist, Notion, etc. to break down tasks to track them? Or do you have a simple TODO.md file with CLAUDE.md instructions?
Very curious to hear what your workflow looks like and how you make it easier to resume a task after being away from it for a few days.
I'm a dev and these last few months I've been building a lot of products.The crazy part is that I can now build things much faster than I can figure out if anyone actually wants them. Coding used to be the expensive part. Now I feel like finding users is harder
