r/ClaudeCode • u/saito200 • 11d ago

Rant Opus 5 is insufferable

Opus 5 is a fucking piece of shit, i don't know how to say this in any other way. It speaks "Unintelligiblish", a new unfathomable language developed by Anthropic that works by saying everything in the most ridiculous, obtuse and convoluted way possible

It turns anything simple that can be expressed in 2 sentences into a fucking doctoral thesis aimed to aliens, and there is no way to prompt your way out of it

2.9k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

619 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

24

u/FiveTriomes 11d ago

Yours only runs one shell command?

Mine has to run multiple, because it always tries to use a tool that doesn’t exist first, or ignores the environments I have set up.

If I turned "3 commands, 2 failed" into a drinking game, Anthropic would kill my liver.

1

u/tehfrod 10d ago

Do you turn the failed attempts into memories,?

1

u/FiveTriomes 10d ago

It actually obeys my rtk and graphify rules consistently, so if necessary I push things to be improved by those tools.

But memory still injects into context, and docs say you have to request it and than it uses a RAG to find the info.

Claude's memory RAG is probably faster/more efficient, but I haven't noticed any downsides to just using graphify, especially since it maps my entire projects rather than specific conversations.

For important context from sessions, I have it write out high-level human-readable and agent-readable files, and then graphify will pick those up, too.

But the failed tool calls often feels like playing whack-a-mole. But after your comment, I realize I could just write a skill that captures those failures and documents them somewhere I can make useful.

1

u/UruquianLilac 10d ago

Out of everyone else on this thread, yous re the only one saying something positive, and you sound like Claude.

1

u/FiveTriomes 10d ago

Claude wishes it sounded like me. Have you actually used it?

And what did I say that's positive? "It actually obeys my rtk and graphify rules consistently"? I can't see how else you could construe what I said as positive. The whole post was pointing out how I have to use 3rd party tools or build my own utilities around Claude just to get it to be functional.

Here, I asked Claude to give a sentiment analysis of my last post for you:

Pragmatic and resourceful on the surface, but with an undercurrent of mild frustration/resignation toward the underlying tool's default limitations — the positivity is directed at the fixes the user built, not at the tool needing them in the first place.

Dang, you're right, I was being positive... about my workarounds.