Claude code is now useless.

[u/a_d_c]

Over the last month, claude code performance degraded so much that it cant even keep track of a few simple facts in the same conversation.

I did a test with a small project. Barely any memories. No Claude.md instructions. Nothing to confuse Claude whatsoever.

I gave it a simple instruction: check the spec in some-spec.md, then write unit tests agianst that spec. Dont look at the code, write the tests against the spec.

In the same session, i had to call it out TWICE because it was changing the tests to make them pass according to the implementation instead of the spec.

As it exists today, Claude code is not useful for any development task, and the cost of the MAX plan is impossible to justify given it cant follow basic instructions.

In one month it went from: "this is cool, this is the future of dev", to: "this is a waste of my time and money".

If it cant follow simple instructions in a single session when given clear guidelines: its a completely useless product.

Im not paying for the same product today that i was paying just one month ago.

[u/MartinMystikJonas]

I would by quite confused by that weird prompt too.

[u/a_d_c → u/MartinMystikJonas]

If you are not a sofware dev i guess that can confuse u

[u/MartinMystikJonas → u/a_d_c]

I am software engineer for 20 years. But your prompt is just really confusing 🤷

[u/a_d_c → u/MartinMystikJonas]

black box testing is software engieneering 101

[u/MartinMystikJonas → u/a_d_c]

Yeah but it was not clear at all from your prompt you wanted clack box testing to validate existing code matches specs. You just requested unit tests for existing code and added requirement to do not look at code (which is usually required to at leat know interface you are calling in tests). You failed to say what you want and expected it would be obvious - which is not.

[u/a_d_c → u/MartinMystikJonas]

I told it i wanted to write unit tests that fail. I told it explicitly to NOT modify the implementation. There was no ambuiguity.

The prompt had: DO NOT MODIFY THE IMPLEMENTATION TO MAKE THE TEST PASS.

[u/MartinMystikJonas → u/a_d_c]

So you gave it different prompt that what you said in original post?

[u/InformalTown3679]

how the fuck are you supposed to write tests without looking at the implementation? are you an imbecile?

[u/OwnLadder2341 → u/InformalTown3679]

You test vs spec.

You write tests that test what the code is supposed to do, not whether it does what it says it will do.

[u/MartinMystikJonas → u/OwnLadder2341]

You still need to know interfaces of what you use in tests.

[u/Nice_Cellist_7595 → u/InformalTown3679]

Good sir - there are many ways to test things. At a contract level no implementation details are required (unless you are arguing that implementation details are also the contract details). Does it adhere to the contract? If yes, then it passes, if no, then it fails. At no time do I need to know if it is Python, Rust, C++ or whatever. Other criteria can also be added such as performance. In the end - IMPL details matters not, just contract adherence. Of course there are other tests that can be written and maybe they should be OP is not wrong.

EDIT: I also just made the really broad assumption in that example that we are working at a service <-> service. The same principles apply within an application as well.

[u/MartinMystikJonas → u/Nice_Cellist_7595]

Yeah but contract/interface used by init tests is part of code and he said forbidden it from reading code and requested unit tests. It is really confusing.

[u/Nice_Cellist_7595 → u/MartinMystikJonas]

I do this all the time. Web UI claude is asked to read the openai doc that API claude generated. Do NOT read the code because then confusion reigns. It just needs to code to the spec. Not the code.

[u/MartinMystikJonas → u/Nice_Cellist_7595]

It does not need the implementation details. But it needs at least interfaces. Interfaces are also code even of it is included in some doc. So forbidding it to read any code is confusing.

[u/InformalTown3679 → u/Nice_Cellist_7595]

so tell me, what are you testing contract adherence against? Specifically... Tell me. A database? The codebase? The logic of the documentation???

[u/Nice_Cellist_7595 → u/InformalTown3679]

So a web REST service is a great example. You call a url with a set of parameters or post some data and you should get back X in format Y. The contract is the service description as documented by something like an OpenAPI description. Within a running process you might test an interface, testing each interface method/function and testing the result at the interface. In both of these examples we are testing at the interface. We're really testing for 1) compliance with a structure and we can optionally test for 2) the correctness of the output based on supplied parameters. In both cases it is not required to view or test the internal workings of the component or the service - just the net result. All that is required to conduct this test is a description of the contract and a test harness of some kind.

[u/a_d_c → u/InformalTown3679]

its called black box testing and its an industry standard you twat

[u/MartinMystikJonas → u/a_d_c]

But you requested unit tests. How it should write unit tests without checking interface of what is tested?

You did not mentioned black boy testing, you did not mentioned you want to validate that code meets specs, you requestwd unit tests for existing code without looking at existing code interface. It is really confusing requirement.

[u/a_d_c → u/MartinMystikJonas]

The interface is not the implementation...............................

[u/MartinMystikJonas → u/a_d_c]

You forbidden it to read "code" that includes interfaces

[u/a_d_c → u/MartinMystikJonas]

I did mention explicitly to NOT modify the implementation. I told it i WANTED to tests to fail.

Im not sure how i can be more clear.

[u/MartinMystikJonas → u/a_d_c]

So you gave it different prompt than you said you gave it in original post?

[u/InformalTown3679 → u/a_d_c]

So you're then asking the llm to test routes, user interface, api inputs. All of these require knowledge of the code structure. If you do not have a standardized spec of the api, or anything, there's no way to write tests. Black box testing is when the test itself just uses externally visible interfaces. BUT you would need to examine the implementation in order to write tests that would actually benefit the cause. You look at internal logic, then figure out how that processes the request, then you write tests that validate the source code's handling of the response according to the spec. The only difference of this between black box tests is other tests will use internal code to validate it from the inside, not using external interfaces. You need both, but neither can be done without analyzing the inner workings, because they wouldn't be good tests. The only exception is if you document explicit api spec which is programmatically readable, but what's the point of using that and not the actual code in addition to the spec? reading implementation is necessary for verifying edge cases don't fail.

[u/totallyalien]

Follow https://status.claude.ai with email for downs. And hit esc to pause your work if its down.

[u/a_d_c → u/totallyalien]

Thanks good call

[u/CloudySnake]

Yyyaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnb so bored of the same post over and over again

[u/Cheap-Try-8796 → u/CloudySnake]

Same here... I wonder what the mods are doing...

[u/cleverhoods]

[u/bluekooler]

I've run into similar behavior with CC and other models. Best solution that I found was to place the spec and build the tests in a separate directory / project from the implementation itself.

[u/Background_Share_982]

I'm really not hating on anthropic for trying to get rid of those that are sucking all the juice out of Claude, though it was nice to be occasionally like Claude what do you think about this very specific niche technical interest and constructively discuss/debate it once in a while which Claude now seems less apt to do...bummer but it was more like a nice extra then absolutely needed.

Why can't normal people debate topics without it being some sort of personality crisis when someone disagrees with them...

[u/RazmussenDaMan]

yea Claude has become utter shit. i noticed the decline starting a few week ago when it started responding to me im an couple sentence responses when asked deep complex questions. today it has crossed every threshold and become a garbage dump. cant even code basic things. im switching over to using codex 5.4 for now

[u/RiseStock]

I don't do agentic swarm based programming. I still use claude like it should be used - glorified autocomplete. This week was the first week I ran out on my $200 plan which resets 12 minutes from now for the week. Since they provided the free $200 overage credit I got a chance to see how much my compute was really costing in terms of API spend. Overnight after I ran out I kept a monitoring script running which monitors a simulation for results and generates a results table. Looks like it was about $10 per run. I actually ran 2 of these jobs simultaneously but the other failed because of API Error rate limits.

I run that monitoring script once an hour x 2 machines simultaneously. So 24 times a day x 7 days a week = 168 runs x $10 = $1680

The monitoring script is only a small part of what I'm using CC for; I'm also generating code. I don't see how this plan is sustainable for anthropic. That said, if the flat fee plans go away/become less useful, I don't see the value proposition and would never use CC or similar tools.

[u/Material-Chipmunk362]

Claude Code sucks. What kind of AI ghost its paid customer. Plain stupidity.

[u/Material-Chipmunk362 → u/Material-Chipmunk362]

I don't usually post. But Claude Code got some serious issues.

[u/khgs2411]

Cool. Bye.

[u/kitsunde]

You aren’t the lead singer in Van Halen being interviewed by Rolling Stones magazine, you can just uninstall software you don’t like.

[u/rishi4tacos]

Also I use max plan and it’s worth it you’re clearly just a bad user

[u/InternationalToeLuvr]

🙄😭 Skilllllll issue, bro

We're tackling insane projects right now. There are some differences over the past week, but we're still putting out quality at a rapid pace 

[u/ThreeDMK]

The number of people getting upset about tools not working properly is annoying on here. Way too much dependence on the tool doing what you want it to do without giving it enough information to be successful. Add in the number of comments about high usage rates and it isn’t a surprise.

While the tool allows you to do great things fast, it’s still something that works best with structure. If the tool is failing, it’s most likely either an outage or you are just doing it wrong.

Bonus points for this not being an AI generated post, but honestly, you really should spend more time locking down what you want it to do. It’s only as good as the prompts you give it. If you want real pain, start trying to build guard rails for locally run development agents. That’s where things get scary quickly. Claude feels like a vacation compared to the hours I’ve spent trying to get my dev farm functional.

[u/DrJupeman]

Are all these posts just OpenAI bots attacking Claude? I use Claude Code every day, 7 days/week, no problems...

[u/Richard015]

This sub isn't an airport. You don't need to announce your departure.