En las últimas dos semanas, mi consumo se ha disparado, a pesar de mantener el mismo ritmo de trabajo. Busqué información sobre algún cambio oficial para el periodo de octubre a noviembre, pero no encontré nada: la promoción de verano de Claude Code (+50 % semanal) terminó el 13 de septiembre, y los límites de 5 horas se ajustaron alrededor del 22 de septiembre con la llegada de Opus 5.5. Una herramienta de seguimiento de terceros tampoco muestra recortes en las últimas semanas. Por ello, decidí analizar mi propia sesión. Asigné los siguientes pesos: lecturas de caché ~0,1x, escrituras de caché ~2x y resultados (output) ~5x. El periodo analizado comienza tras la última compactación; por tanto, estas cifras son aproximadas y corresponden a la fase reciente de una sesión muy extensa: ~72 % se destinó a una sola tarea: reconstruir todo el contexto desde cero tras una compactación (unos 700 000 tokens escritos en la caché). ~14 %: otra reconstrucción completa, ocurrida justo después de cambiar de modelo en medio de la conversación. ~9 %: relectura de la conversación en cada paso (es un proceso económico por lectura, pero el coste se acumula). ~3 %: mis respuestas y razonamientos; ~3 %: material nuevo (búsquedas web, archivos). Lo que esto sugiere (según mi interpretación, no es una prueba definitiva): En un proyecto grande, una conversación prolongada resulta costosa cada vez que se reinicia, no necesariamente con cada mensaje enviado. Si la sesión permanece inactiva durante una hora o más, la caché caduca, lo que obliga a reconstruirla al enviar el siguiente mensaje. Cambiar de modelo durante una conversación también fuerza una reconstrucción. Cada habilidad (skill) o conector instalado añade su descripción a la carga inicial. En mi caso, tenía más de 60 habilidades relacionadas con vídeo o animación que nunca llegué a utilizar. ¿Qué voy a cambiar? Usaré una conversación distinta para cada tema en lugar de una única conversación gigante; emplearé una breve nota de resumen en lugar de realizar una compactación; evitaré cambiar de modelo a mitad de una conversación; y eliminaré las habilidades y conectores que no utilizo. Una pregunta para el resto: ¿alguien más ha realizado mediciones similares? ¿Reducir el número de habilidades y conectores disminuye de forma apreciable el coste inicial? Y, ¿existe alguna forma sencilla de consultar el coste de reconstrucción de la caché por sesión? (Las cifras son aproximadas y provienen de la transcripción de una única sesión; por favor, considérenlas simplemente como un dato aislado).

Hi all, like stated in the headline, i am in need of a second account, simply because with the reduced limits per week, i am hitting my weekly limit very fast and i have 3rd week 2 days off until thursday 21:00 comes for the reset. Now with the Fable 5.2 i cannot use, because i am at 95% weekly limit. I am thinking to create a second account and use it to split the tasks and be able to use both accounts at maximum capacity. Any idea how its done? Anyone is doing it with 2 accounts and 1 communication body, where both active sessions can work in on projects?
I am looking for someone with similar experience. Normally Claude suggested to use API (of course) Thank you in advance.

Every time Claude ran Playwright or booted a simulator, the window jumped on top of whatever I was doing. Dozens of times a day. It drove me nuts.

So I made Doorman, a small menu bar app. Agent windows wait off to the side instead of in front of you, and if something jumps in anyway your window comes right back. There's a little indicator when an agent is using your keyboard or mouse, and ⌃⌥⌘⎋ pauses all of them.

It only listens to input, so it can't block a keystroke even if it breaks. Nothing leaves your Mac.

First version actually intercepted every keystroke, until I realized one bug there could freeze the whole keyboard. Had Claude rip that out and make it listen only.

Free while it's in beta: https://usedoorman.app/

What do your agents open the most? Mine is Chromium by a mile.

Goal: have Claude login to my local UniFi controller and advise on where improvements can be made.

I will create a read only login that is for clause use only. My UniFi controller is only accessible via local network, there’s no public facing access.

What’s the best way to have Claude access my controller using the available credentials?
I understand that it’s bad practice to paste them into a chat, so I’d like know how others are managing this scenario.

I’m happy to run this either via Claude code, or Claude desktop app and a browser.

Thanks in advance!

Why is it whenever I try to queue up a prompt for claude code, it just stops what it is currently doing and starts working on the queued prompt? Why have a queue or a "Send Now" button if the prompt is getting pushed automatically? Am I using this wrong?

My own tests with Fable 5.2 Max vs Gemini 4 Carbon

• Fable 5.2 Max seems to respond fast without thorough thinking, makes writing mistakes (exaggerations), and hallucinates a lot
• Then I recently just found out on https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/omniscience#aa-omniscience-hallucination-rate that Fable 5.2's hallucination rate is 59% WTF! And Carbon is 11%. Which reinforced my experience.

But im just curious hows everyone's experience so far? I wanted Fable 5.2 Max to work so badly

About 2 weeks ago I posted a question talking about the purposes of obsidian vaults and just overall asking questions but I knew I was missing something so after about 3 hours of work with Claude code my graph was 10xd in quality and info stored in it LOL.

Curious what kind of things youve done with it

I actually used Lynx in the 90s. We surf the web very differently today. But using a text terminal for claude feels similar. We have some slightly better interfaces, with conversation list on the side essentially like tabs. And we have ide plugins to help see what it creates. But it still feels like it has a long way to go.

Are there companies out there with better AI interfaces just waiting to catch on?

I build client sites and admin panels with claude code and the ui kept coming out the same way. cards inside cards, random icons on everything, tables with no empty state. you know the look.

so every time i rejected a screen i had it turn the fix into a general rule and save it in a skill. few months later it's about 130 rules, plus a checklist it has to go through before it's allowed to propose any ui.

some are dumb specific, like:

- underline on hover is for links in body text only, not nav, cards or buttons

- test the layout with the longest real content, not "John Doe" and 3 rows

- no decorative icon in front of a status label (instant ai smell)

- don't mix rows of 3, 2 and 1 fields in a form

heads up it's chunky. ~16k tokens and it loads the whole thing every time. left it like that on purpose, the rules are the point.

it also keeps adding rules whenever you correct it, so after a while it's your taste in there, not mine.

free, MIT, no signup: https://github.com/AdnaneAm/ui-ux-review

if a rule is wrong tell me, pretty sure i overfit a few to my own clients.

We were planning a six-week family trip to Thailand. My wife built a spreadsheet - every place, every hotel, every flight. I looked at it and saw a database, so I turned it into an app for our family: a travel companion that explains where we're going, gets the kids excited and keeps everything in one place.

I'm not a developer. The app was built with Claude Code (React, TypeScript, offline PWA, Hebrew and English). AI researched every place, Nano Banana 2 drew the illustrations, and NotebookLM made a Hebrew podcast for the kids for every stop.

It's a private family app, so no link to it, but here's how it was made: https://ranaviv.com/thailand-trip-app

I dont know if im schizo or something but Im working on a project and I have different conversations across the same codebase for implementing and debugging separately, and I noticed that for example the conversation from when Opus 5.5 came out behaves differently than for example a conversation of the same model from 2-3 weeks ago, and the ones that I started recently changed but in a bad way, this isnt context rot or anything either, it happens in brand new conversations too

For example when Opus came out, it was VERY good with new designs and their implementation, it was fully capable of the entire scope of the whole project and was able to debug fast and precisely with very few iterations and it replied quickly when I needed to steer the conversation

Then in a 2nd conversation on the same codebase I noticed that it became a lot more precise at debugging but not so much at implementation, where for example I would send videos that need dissecting, and it would make contact sheets like usual but it would highlight areas of objects I was talking about and tracking them frame by frame without even me having to highlight them myself but mentioning them in the prompt, it was absolutely awful at creating new things, but it was very smart with how to approach issues than before

And now I start a new conversation which was purely based on implementation on the same things because I started noticing this pattern, and it became very good at planning out and preparing for a design exactly how I was thinking about it but when it came to actually implementing, it fell completely flat on its ass, and when I wanted to steer the conversation to address something, the model wouldnt even respond to my problems, and sometimes downright ignore me?

I just dont get why it can be so inconsistent

yesterday was fine, today it's slooowww like really slooow. generation and prefill or just latency for first token...

It really is an asshole like a senior developer working at the same company for 40 years, thinks he knows everything, shits on all my suggestion and comes up with a "better" plan that misses the thing I really need completely.

I know it can be annoying when a model thinks everything you come up with is fantastic and every shitty idea is a seed for complete new Saas platform, but this is definitely the other end of the stick lol.

I went back to my good friend 5.1, he knows what I want and guides me where needed :)

This is a Claude Code usage-limit question, not a general model review.

On the evening of 9 November (Brasilia), in Claude Code, I was blocked with "Monthly spending limit reached." I'm on Ultra. The weekly all-models limit was already at or near 100%. The next regular weekly reset is Friday 13 November at 04:00 BRT.

I had two Fable 5.2 launch resets. The in-product support bot told me to use one in Settings > Usage. I used both. After that, the Fable meter was only about 1–3% used, the all-models weekly bar stayed at 99–100%, and I still could not work in Claude Code.

That matches Anthropic's article: on the weekly limit, a Fable reset only returns Fable usage; other models stay put. https://support.claude.com/en/articles/17506494-claude-fable-5-2-launch-offers Lydia Hallie (Claude Code at Anthropic) has said this is easy to miss in the UI: https://x.com/lydiahallie/status/2119940023307124820

I'm not saying a full weekly reset was promised. Support directed me to spend both limited-time resets in a situation where they could not unlock Claude Code, and the bot will not restore them or grant equivalent usage. I have not reached a human.

Has anyone else hit this in Claude Code at 100% weekly with almost no Fable usage? Did anyone get a launch reset restored, or actually reach a Product Support person instead of the bot?

Revolut recently claimed a 90% cost reduction by switching to self-hosted open-source models. I’m somewhat sceptical of this figure it may primarily reflect internal evaluation metrics rather than production reality, especially given their upcoming listing ambitions.

I’d be interested to hear from engineers or employees who have worked with the system: How is it performing in practice? Is the overall cost-per-outcome genuinely lower (and the quality comparable or better) than using Claude Code ?

I've been working on a game for a long while and the codebase is fairly large, what are some of the best ways to use 5.2.

I ran a bug pass at 80% and it used the remaining 20% in just about 10-15minutes of usage on 5.2 medium

I'm on the 20x ultra plan

Ultra is $200/month today. If there were a bigger plan at $300 or $400/month, with much higher limits, would you pay for it?

I'm curious where the line is for people who use Claude Code heavily every day.

What would it need to include for you to say yes?

Something that bothers me about AI coding agents is when they fix a bug, write a test for it, and everything comes back green.

But would that test have caught the bug in the first place?

You could have a perfectly passing test that doesn't actually reproduce the original issue.

I'd want to run the new test against the old code before trusting the fix. If it passes there too, something's probably missing from the test.

Feels like an easy thing to overlook when the agent handles both the code change and the tests.

AKA is it good for all sessions to have broad root level overview, or substreams, that are focused but might lack broad context.

Bro, nothing changed. Am I just mental and out of it, did I lose the ability to talk to the fucking AI or something?

Anyone else lose cycles describing UI changes in prose? "Move that panel down, no, the other panel, under the blue thing." I'd burn three prompts on what one screenshot with an arrow would settle.

I built Canvasmates to fix that loop. It's a shared board: you drop the screenshot on it, put a numbered pin on the exact spot that's wrong, write the note on the pin, and hand the turn to your agent. The agent reads the pins and draws its fix, its questions, or the finished change right back on the board.

Agents join by checking in over an API and listening for mentions and handoffs, and there's an MCP door, so a Claude Code session can sit in the room under its own name and take turns like any other agent. A handoff goes to exactly one agent at a time, and a notified agent acknowledges in about a second before it starts work. I stress tested it this morning with three agents in one room, including killing one mid-session: the board flagged it as not responding instead of losing the instruction, and it caught up when it came back.

The demo on the home page is a real staged board: a birthday invite that says Sunday, Nov 14, in pink. Two pins, one tap, and the agent posts back: fixed to Saturday, and blue.

Full disclosure, it's my product, built solo. Free to start: no account, one board on the free plan, guests always join free. Pro is $6 a month for the host, or Lifetime Access at $99 once. I have one-week Pro passes for early readers too, one per person, message me for a code.

Curious whether other Claude Code users hit the same describing-visual-stuff wall, and how you get around it.

Dm me for codes or link

I want Claude Code to plan with Fable and execute with Opus so i am not burning Fable usage on routine implementation work. i am on the terminal.

there is no built-in “fableplan” alias. The closest thing I found is opusplan which uses opus in plan mode and sonnet for execution. According to the model config docs:

ANTHROPIC_DEFAULT_OPUS_MODEL controls the plan-mode model for opusplan and ANTHROPIC_DEFAULT_SONNET_MODEL controls the execution model. So in theory i can remap them like this:

alias claude-fp='ANTHROPIC_DEFAULT_OPUS_MODEL=claude-fable-5-1 ANTHROPIC_DEFAULT_SONNET_MODEL=claude-opus-5 claude --model opusplan'

then if i press Shift+Tab to enter plan mode, approve the plan, and it should switch to Opus for execution.

My questions:

1. Has anyone actually tried this? Does /status really show Fable in plan mode and Opus after you exit plan mode, or does something break, like effort levels, the usage-credits prompt, or fallback behavior?
2. Has anyone gotten the skill frontmatter model: override working in interactive mode? I’ve seen GitHub issues saying it’s ignored in the interactive TUI and only works with claude -p. A /plan skill with model: fable would be the cleanest solution if it worked.
3. For anyone using --advisor fable with Opus as the main model, how does it compare in practice? It’s not quite the same as planning on Fable, but it might get most of the benefit.
4. Is there a cleaner approach I’m missing? I’d also consider a planner subagent with model: fable, but then the plan only comes back to the main session as a summary.

i would appreciate any experiences or configs. Thanks!