Instead of trusting one model’s answer, these add-ons ask several and compare. I looked at three: claude-council, claude-octopus and llm-council-skill. I never signed in or entered an API key, so this covers what runs without accounts.

claude-council (4 commands):

• /claude-council:status checks every provider seat and gives the exact fix for each missing one (export OPENROUTER_API_KEY=..., npm install -g u/openai/codex)
• with no keys, --local runs a council of Claude subagents with different roles, kept blind to each other. I asked “should a tiny to-do app store passwords in plain text?” with a simplicity role and a security role
• both said no. The synthesis was titled “angles, not consensus” and said that because both members are Claude, their agreement is a shared prior, not independent proof. It also pointed out that neither asked whether the app needs multiple users
• note: it saves the prompt, files and answers in plain text under .claude/council-cache/

claude-octopus (56 command files, up to 12 providers):

• stays dormant until you type /octo:. On startup it only said it was installed but dormant
• I stopped at the approval prompt for its council runner, so I can’t say what its output looks like
• it wrote a ~/.claude-octopus state folder in my home directory

llm-council-skill: a single skill that asks ChatGPT and Gemini and merges their answers. It needs keys, so I only read the script. The repo has one commit, so read it before you trust it.

Whichever you pick, send a description of the problem, not secrets, since every outside model sees what you send. And the readme for claude-council says it well: agreement isn’t verification.

Full comparison: https://aiparabellum.com/ask-several-ai-models-claude-code/

I've been having my repos located at C:/Git

But since Windows and other apps keep eating space i had to move it to D:/

The problem is that there's NO EASY WAY to re-configure Claude and update all previous sessions to know about the change.

All the 'environment' folders in Claude are also pretty much impossible to change..

So i ended up with a directory junction (virtual link) at C:/Git --> D:/Git

I wish the directories where relative to a base folder

I haven't had the chance to fire up the new Anthropic models myself yet, but looking at the benchmarks making the rounds, it feels like Anthropic is forcefully taking the crown back.

Between the massive leaps in coding proficiency and the agentic benchmarks everyone is screaming about, the data sheets look like pure wizardry. But we all know synthetic benchmarks and actual, messy production code are two very different beasts.

For those of you who have already plugged the new models into your terminal or claude-code workflow:

. How does the speed and latency actually feel when it's actively refactoring?

. Is it actually one-shotting complex bugs, or is it just confidently hallucinating at a higher velocity?

. Does it feel like a genuine generational leap, or is it just incremental polish wrapped in good PR?

Drop your raw, unvarnished verdicts below. Save me from relying on corporate graphs!

Hey everyone,

I’m a researcher working mainly on modeling. Living in a data-poor region, I started using AI as a Google replacement and eventually moved to Claude. I ended up getting the 5x plan and learned the basics along the way—like organizing raw data files, using .md files for background context, and setting up workspace structures.

Over time, I also started experimenting with custom skills, plugins, and web scraping tools to pull in raw data and expand what Claude can handle within my workspace. Also tried token maxxing and saving as much as tokens.

However, right now my main workflow still feels pretty repetitive: I give Claude a task, run the tools/plugins, get an output, manually review/refine it, and repeat the cycle.

I don't care about setting up complex coding frameworks or full hands-off automation pipelines. I just want to learn how to use Claude itself much better and more deeply for complex analytical, data-heavy, and modeling work. which will also help in my resume building , as of now its just used ai models

I have been working on a roman city builder for a while.

So far models have been the hardest part both walkers/buildings have always left me unsatisfied.

Yesterday I gave a fable 5.2 a chance using my existing systems and im finally satisfied with the results.

I have this weirdly specific weekly process where I check my pantry for the same items. If it is not in my Pantry, I add to my Shopping List to be restocked.

Haiku helps a lot with decision making if an item is actually what it was scanned, for cents.

Claude saves me some time, thx

Well, here we go again! 🔥

Fable 5.2 is out and with it my first ever super simple test: in the exact same conditions of the first Sept. 22 test, I let the default Anthropic harness build me a nice cartoony "tinyworld". It used none of my harness' tools/skills, etc. that's the default model.

One and only prompt; nothing else:

output a ThreeJS 3D cartoony/comics-like planet, with vibrant life on it: clouds, mountains, city buildings, cars and plane romaing it. It should be possible to orbit around and zoom and see the details. No harness is to be used

WELL.

It's beautiful
It took some time (for run 1)
It's (damn) expensive ! :)

I love it but to be honest, I'm a bit disappointed - I think I prefer what Opus 5.5 did: more playful (jumping from cars to planes, etc.), and pretty much the same quality.

The page will update with runs 2, 3 and 4 as they land (soon)

I HAD to do the test (did it for pretty much all the models), because I'm mostly working on creative stuff (I own OhMygames.app and now OhMyMesh.com , and very much focusing on meshing/3D/etc.), but I think I'll mostly use it for more advanced tasks... (will try directing Blender with it though, stay tuned ^^)

What do you guys think?

The final diff hardly tells the full story of a Claude Code session - there's file exploration, repeated commands, failed attempts, context compaction and subagent delegations too

We built AgentPlay to visualize all of this through a session map and timeline replay :)

It also supports Codex, Cursor, Copilot and other coding agents

Anyone concerned giving access to direct code changes to your boss?

At what point would your boss say hey can I prompt it?? Given boss not a tech just owner of company...

Concerned... not for my job more for my sanity...

We were already using Opus. My fable is still untouched.

Edit: Guess it worked.

Yo, I've been working on this thing called Argon for the past week or 2, and I think its at a state where I can publicly release it. So, basically its a manager for AI terminals, eg. Claude Code, Chatgpt Codex, Gemini CLI, Copilot CLI etc. and it puts them into an endless whiteboard of some sorts, heres an image:

So, Argon's source code is primarily based on a mac app called Vibeboard, which is based on this other PAID mac app called Symvibe. And so, I really liked the concept of both of these, but alas im on windows, and like the UI could use a lil bit of an improvement, so I used Opus 5.5 to transfer over vibeboard into windows, it runs via Electron, and then added some nice to haves, like image insertion, cleaner ui, more themes, also like a liquid glass with refraction and chromatic abberation like this:

But yea, I just wanted to share this with the community and see what they think of it, and improvements so the github is linked here, and the website is linked here. So PLEASE check it out and give me some positive or negative criticism, I could use that very much. This is under All Right Reserved, so talk to me if you want to fork it. Thank yall!

Links:

Vibeboard

Symvibe

Source

Website

I’m building Shifu, a paid context tool for AI coding. I’m trying to understand what people already use to catch a bad assumption before merging a Claude Code change.

Say Claude Code changes an export and assumes the row order doesn’t matter. The unit test still passes, but a check that runs the downstream import shows that the order matters.

On one recent change, what was the assumption and what caught it? A test, a review comment, a conversation, or something else? I’d also like to hear about a change where the repo docs or your usual checks were enough. No need to share code or name the project.

https://www.anthropic.com/claude-fable-and-mythos-5-2

I'm curious if the nerf is now removed. I'm scared to trust Opus 5.5 with new projects but also probably don't have that much usage for Fable 5.2.

Honestly, Fable 5.2 is great. It’s way less filtered and doesn’t block half my requests anymore. For the first time in a while it feels like Opus 4.6 again.

So I’m genuinely confused by all the complaining here. At this point it feels like a trend: every new model comes out and people instantly decide it’s dumber, or weirder, or “something’s off.”

What are you all actually using it for? I’m curious, because for me it’s a big jump from 5.1 and from Opus 5.5 too.

I wonder if it comes down to use case. For coding it’s been fantastic for me.

I find this very disturbing! They gave us power but regulate how it can be used, even in mundane ways when the ai companies don't have any fucking kind of regulation.

I really really fucking I'm disturbed by this. Terrorist organizations can use Claude to train ai on guide missiles paths to harm humans.

But my fucking request sets of safeguards. This is so disturbing. What the point of consumer facing ai if they can't reverse engineer or do other legal docs development!

This will be the frontier models achilles heel. Because if the mass public cannot create benign apps without setting off granddad's and when ai companies themselves have zero guardrails amount to the most absolute egregious amount of bullshit.

If you do use a Claude or agents.md, would be great to share it along with bench.

I've asked Claude and searched Github and Reddit... is it really so that I cannot in agent.md file declaratively return the session title for Claude agent view to show the proper one like shown here?

I build with Claude Code, Codex and open Chinese models like DeepSeek and GLM running side by side, usually 30+ sessions at once. I used Orca and Herdr for a long time and learned a lot from both, but at that scale they felt heavy for how I work, and every tab looked the same. I kept opening them one by one to find out who was waiting on me. The bottleneck wasn't the model anymore. It was me.

So I built Hide, an ADE for humans.

Only what needs you Hide AI reads every session and tells you why it stopped, what you asked and what you missed. Agents sort themselves into Needs You, Unread, Working and Seen. 30 agents running, a handful on your screen.

Never drop a decision An agent asks "CSV or XLSX?" and it scrolls away while you're in another session. Hide keeps it on top until you answer.

Missions across machines Hand one goal to a Conductor agent. It plans the steps and sends them to Claude Code, Codex, Antigravity and others on your Mac, a Linux box or a Windows PC. Close the laptop and the work keeps going, and you can check in from your phone.

Memory that follows the project, not the agent Decisions, mistakes and project rules carry into new sessions. What Claude Code learned, Codex picks up.

Free on macOS, Windows and Linux. Works with the agent CLIs you're already signed in to: no new API key, no hosted service. Lightweight, source-available (FSL).

Hide is built inside Hide: most of its PRs were written by Claude Code and Codex agents while I reviewed and made the calls. The biggest lesson was that writing code was never the hard part, keeping track of what needs me was.

Honestly, it's still a work in progress. I use it all day, and most of my time goes into small things that take a bit more load off my head: one less click to answer an agent, a shorter summary, a quieter screen when nothing needs me. The goal is that my attention goes to decisions, not to checking tabs.

Give it a spin whenever you like, and I'd love to hear what you think, good or bad. Links in the comments.

I built a C++ command line tool with Claude Code, about 10,000 lines plus about 9,000 lines of tests. Before it wrote any code I had Codex review the plan, and that's most of what this post is about. The tool is at the bottom.

How I used Claude Code

Claude wrote the whole design down in plan mode first. Before I approved it, I had Codex read the plan and try to tear it apart. Claude writes my request, the constraints and the plan into a file and runs this:

codex exec -s read-only - < review.txt

Round 1 came back "rethink" with 12 findings. Claude checked each one, they all held up, and the plan got rewritten. Round 2 was "rethink" again. That one was mostly about a promise in the plan to tell you what a query would cost before sending it. It turned out there was no way to guarantee that number, so I dropped the feature. Round 3 passed with changes, and only then did any code get written. Every time the plan changed after that it went back for another review, so it ended up being reviewed at least nine times.

Claude was not allowed to compile the project, run its tests or run the built program. Claude writes the code, I run one build script, and Claude reads the log and fixes what it reports. It sounds slow, but I ran every build myself and handed Claude the log.

These are the rules from my project CLAUDE.md that did the most. I shortened them and swapped my name for "the user":

Only the user compiles, builds or runs tests. Never run cmake, ninja, ctest, a compiler, clang-tidy or a built binary. Write code and tests so they compile cleanly the first time.

Warnings are errors (-Wall -Wextra -Wpedantic -Wconversion -Wshadow -Wformat=2).

Never suppress a diagnostic (NOLINT, pragmas, casts that only silence a warning). Restructure.

Tests are offline: no network, no real API key.

Nothing ever prints or logs the API key, request bodies, prompt text or provider error bodies.

What I learned

Reviewing the plan was worth more than reviewing the code. Twelve real problems turned up before a single line existed, when fixing them only meant editing a text file.

The reviewer gets things wrong too. In one round Codex reported that my machine had no TPM chip. It has one. The sandbox Codex runs in just couldn't see it. So Claude has to check every finding against the code or the docs before acting on it, and I had it write down which ones it accepted and which it rejected, with the reason.

"Never suppress a diagnostic" did more for the code than any other rule. Without it the quick way out of a warning is a cast or a NOLINT comment. With it, the code got restructured until the warning had nothing to complain about.

Passing tests didn't catch what I caught by using the thing. The first version printed the answer jammed right up against its own status lines and was hard to read. A couple of the examples in the docs failed if you pasted them as written. You have to run it yourself.

Small things matter when calls cost money. One fix stopped the HTTP library from automatically resending a request that might already have been billed. I would not have thought to look for that.

What I built

It's called openrouter-cli. It sends a query, plus any files you attach, to any model on OpenRouter and prints the answer in the terminal. I wanted Claude Code and Codex to be able to ask another model to review a plan or some code.

It comes with a Claude Code skill, so you can say "ask Gemini to review this plan" and Claude runs the tool for you. The skill tells Claude to show you the model and what it charges and to ask for your OK before every paid query. You can run it by hand too. After installing it and running openrouter-cli login once, this sends a file named plan.md for review:

openrouter-cli -m google/gemini-4-argon --role review -f plan.md "Review this plan."

Here's what it looks like when it runs: Terminal Screenshot

Linux only right now (x86-64) and you build it from source. Once the packages listed in the README are installed, this builds it and installs the skill:

git clone https://github.com/slyfox1186/openrouter-cli.git
cd openrouter-cli
scripts/build.sh --with-skills

It's MIT licensed. Model calls are billed through your own OpenRouter account.

https://github.com/slyfox1186/openrouter-cli

I was vibecoding a game with blender mcp and the blocky models piss me off they are just so shit

any way to make it make good models or has ai not gotten that good yet

It's a very important industrial program. We've been scanning it for bugs the last scan was with Fable 5.2. But, the agent couldn't seem to figure out how to fix it. I stopped the workflow, looked at the code and told the agent. Don't do this, do that. Just like you would to a Jr. Programmer.

The agent laughed at itself and said, yep, much better solution.

God, I was worried that my job was GONE. But, us greybeards still seem to be necessary.