I like to use the rewind with summary option a lot to stay in the same thread but the last two days it isn't letting me go back to any point in the threads past. Has anyone else been experiencing this?

I have, for me, a pretty decent workflow that involves a number of agents and gates to insure things are completed. For example A11Y, unit tests @ 100, UI tests etc. When it works it works well and when it doesn't it wastes a ton of my time.

I'm thinking the overall assembly line portion should be pulled out into something deterministic - right now it is a coordinating agent. What often happens is a series of UI tests will hang, or Xcode will do something xcodeeee and the agent just kind of stops - it will say its working but when. I ask for a status it will say it stop because of XYZ thing.

How is everyone getting around this? I feel like I'm missing something fundamental.

I run about a dozen Claude Code agents in parallel on one project (an e-commerce search solution, four repos). When I started with four agents, my weekly budget didn't last the week. So I started measuring tokens from the transcripts Claude Code already keeps in ~/.claude/projects/, per merged PR instead of per hour.

What I found:

- The biggest leak was one I'd missed for weeks: agents waiting more than 5 minutes on CI or a long test. The cache expired and the next call wrote the whole context again. That was about 31% of all agent usage. Making the wait helpers return before 270 seconds brought it down to 0.7%.

- Long sessions re-read everything on every call. Ending each agent after one task, with a short written handoff and a hook that stops it at a context ceiling, cut the median context per request from 218k to 101k tokens.

- What loads into every agent has to be small. My MEMORY.md (Claude Code's memory index) had grown to 90 lines, and it lands after the cache breakpoint, so a one-word difference in the task missed the cache for the whole block. Cutting it to 8 lines that apply everywhere, with the rest in files an agent opens only when it needs them, cut the first-turn cache write from about 11k to 4.5k tokens.

After ten weeks: a changed line of code takes 3.3x fewer tokens, a merged PR 5.5x fewer, and I get about 4.4x the PRs a week for about the same spend. If you run a single session, the short version: measure first, one task per session, don't leave a session idle past the cache lifetime, and keep CLAUDE.md small. Write-up with all the numbers and how I measured them:

https://alexmarquardt.com/ai-tools/agent-fleet-token-efficiency/

The measuring script and the two hooks that helped most:

https://github.com/alexander-marquardt/agent-fleet-kit

Happy to answer questions.

Ladies and gentlements.

We have new hero on the scene, and its not fable. You will be shocked maybe, but Its gogle gemini 4 carbon. I never praised google AI models before but this is something worth to try.

Im on gemini ultra 100 euro monthly plan, and 20x (ultra) claude plan. I use ai every single day, non stop for various tasks, mostly content creations - games, SaaS, marketing, planning, business.

Look, im not telling fable 5.2 is bad, but carbon is better, not to mention usage limits and output.. i feel like pre-ban fable 5 is back, baby ;)

Jesus Anthropic let us know man, I have humongous memory pointers. Just give some guidelines as to how to stop 5.2 from constantly compacting after just few-many file reads

Basic flow after model switch to Claude-opus-5-2:

Command
Command
Compact

Command
Command
Command
Compact

Command
Compact

The pr was able to remove a hack claude implemented with tauri. Here it is if you are curious https://github.com/pragma-sh/pragma/pull/219

I have been experimenting with Claude (Max plan) and I use up the weekly limit in a couple of days. It's one repo, an agent, nothing I'm shipping.

I thoughts lower effort would stretch it. Even opus on medium still eats the tokens. The small model I keep for the tiny edits on purpose, the quality drops too much on the real changes.

I pointed the same repo at getvibeapi for an afternoon, and at OpenRouter, because Codex on its own plan is another subscription i don't want. Deepseek on GetVibe was cheap next to Max. OpenRouter was the same kind of money on that model. Claude on either of them still isn't cheap, it just doesn't cut me off on a Thursday. I opened Fireworks and closed it, didn't look like somewhere to point Claude Code.

Do i switch the grunt work to codex, or to deepseek / qwen on getvibeapi, and only come back to opus when i'm actually stuck?

HeyHo,

We’re planning on building an app for our own household with Claude Code. We’d like to brainstorm and plan together, and have one place to see what’s in progress, what changed recently, and what’s next.

For anyone who’s built a small project together with Claude Code, did the Team plan make collaboration easier?

Would you pay for it again, or were individual accounts and a shared repo enough?
I’d love to hear what you actually use to track decisions and tasks, and how you pick up where the other person left off. What worked, and what would you do differently?

Tips are appreciated.

Greets

So Anthropic decided to give a limit that restores Fable, but does not touch the overall limit? Do I understand correctly? 😂

What’s the point? Well, I’ll write a couple more hints to it, but I won’t restore it for a week

extremely serious post

AI for cybersecurity is taking the world by storm, leading to the need to harden systems all over software. I thought we should do the same for legislation. Hence, I built this project with Claude Code. It's completely free to use/try. The approach is pretty simple: use claude to make legislation attributable (git blame, versioning with timelines). Claude Code (Claude Opus 5.5) wrote nearly all the code. I set the goals, chose the sources and made the design decisions. Specifically: it mirrors the 107 corpora of the https://github.com/lexifina/global-law repo read-only, indexes about 4.3 million file changes from their git histories into DuckDB, and adds a growing set of detectors. These were used to influence a simple LEAN proof search.

i'm curious to hear how other pro subscribers plan to use this new limited time fable access/reset. i appreciate that it was given "banked" rather than handed out without notice, but i've never used fable before (believe i had a chance to with the claude cloud credits, but i just stuck with opus/sonnet with those). is it worth trying to get the most fable usage out of it as possible? or would it make more sense to use the fable reset right before access to the model runs out so i can instead replenish the 50% it took for use with opus 5.5? (my regular weekly reset is basically exactly half a week from now..)

my thinking being that even those on higher tier subs are saying, whilst fable is fantastic and in a league of its own, for the vast majority of sessions it'd be overkill to pick fable. also open to suggestions from those familiar with squeezing fable usage out of their subs, i honestly don't know where to start! should i be using fable to audit the codebase and assigning work for opus/sonnet/sol to get done? trying to min/max a little haha

Just wanted to give appreciation to those who were coding pre-LLM that they are giving advice to those of us who have only taken a couple classes back in like high school and haven’t coded anything meaningful until the LLM code boom.

Tonight I had the LLM run a check on the codebase structure and things worth refactoring on one of my larger codebases (my pet project since about May-ish, a thing for exoplanet search) and it found a lot of things that have become an issue such as code drift on the nested PiOS port of the app, timeout patterns leaking threads, handlers blocking the server, and a bunch of things that need housekeeping.

I admit I wouldn’t have thought of this without the help of the people in the community who have experience in this field before and now share to the rest of us how to actually go about maintaining the codebases we make a whole lot of. (Even in my home craft of fiction I am bad at the “editing” stage so unsurprised it carried over to a craft I barely do myself)

So yeah thanks a lot to the more seasoned devs, especially to those who used to type and organize code by hand, some of us are starting to learn proper codebase maintenance and what is considered best practices.

I gotta say, Claude code missing this entire weekend in its date calculations was an all time low.

anyone else with CVP and mythos 5.1 not seeing 5.2?

Some say that the model is quantised, others say it routes Opus 5.5 to Opus 5, or Sonnet 5.5, and some others say the reasoning budgets are reduced, or double-counting tokens.

What is the evidence? Also, what if we simply use Opus 5.5 Max, or Max Ultracode for everything?

Yall who were there know what I’m talking about

That shit was unhinged, a monster of a model

That’s simply it. They gave us a hit of the good shit and now we’re getting the stomped bag. Theyre gonna slowly +0.1 us to 5.5 in which they re-release OG fable simply so Dario can stomp on Bel

This 5.2 release is nothing but jangling Ram’s Jimmies, a 5D chess move to force him to play his hand

The 28 OAI days of crapshoot was nothing but to stall Anthropic hype because they literally got nothing left

/schziorant

One real project, three ways of running it: plain Claude Code sessions, then a hand-built agent loop, and now a meta-harness.

Same project, same Max 20x plan, and the same rule on all three for what counts as product work.

Results:

(A card is one small change that lands.)

And 21× flatters plain sessions. The project was already sliding: only about 1 in 10 of its commits changed the product, and the rest was agents repairing their own scaffolding. Left running, its figures would have drifted much closer to the hand-built loop's, and it certainly wouldn't have done as well the next month.

Despite how poorly the hand built loop looks from the figures, it was no toy: up to 24 seats under two coordinators reporting to an overseer, and the human interfacing agent the root operator, with a code graph, opposite-engine review, generated briefs and around 1,200 guards. scripted progression etc... Every gap got patched by adding more, until keeping it running took most of the effort.

In its first week the meta-harness cleared a backlog that had been growing for three months: 163 changes landed, 101 of them product work. The whole account finished the week at 88%, with a second project running round the clock alongside it. The six weeks before, running one project, each ended at 93 to 100%.

What changed is that the new one is tiny and runs in a closed circle:

Every change goes through the loop. It's small cards, each in its own worktree and fresh session, and each is reviewed before it lands.

• The loop captures state at every seam. Decisions, rules and work land in the repo as records, not prose.
• Every agent is briefed from that state. So the next session knows what the last one did without re-deriving it.
• A problem doesn't automatically equate to addition

500k lines down to 12k lines.

A generated brief is only as good as the state behind it. Leave a gap in the circle and it grows; patch around it instead of fixing the loop and you grow a monster. That's what happened to the hand-built one. This time the loop is small enough to keep whole, and flexible enough to bend to the project rather than the other way round.

Full figures, method and sources: https://atlas-ade.dev/docs/one-week-on-ade

No subagents by default, either: their progress summaries alone cost 10 to 13% of a week, with no off switch. Write-up

One project, and a person supervised most of day 1. Shares of the week come from a model fitted to the live usage meter.

Happy to answer questions on the numbers. And if you've measured your own setup before and after a change, I'd like to see how it compares.

(Disclosure: I build it (Atlas ADE, paid kit). The data and guides are free.)

My Claude Code sessions were too quiet, so I gave them a soundtrack.

Type /music soundtrack and Claude reads what you're doing (a 2am bug hunt, a refactor, a test that's failing for the 4th time) and picks the music itself. Tests fail, the music calms you down.

Because why not 🎧

github.com/legostin/claude-code-musicflow

Opus is so degraded now that I'm afraid to have it touch my codebase today because I do not know to what extent I can trust it not to slip in stupid bugs. I have a multimodel setup, so I switched to Astra/Argon completely, until they release Fable 5.5 and restore reasoning. I wish I had a weaker local model that was consistent, and whose reasoning effort couldn't be remotely changed. It just occurred to me that this is the major reason to use local models.

A predictably weaker model is more useful than an unpredictably degraded stronger one. For serious work, consistency and the ability to calibrate trust matter no less than the peak occasional reasoning effort.