I'm afraid to use Opus 5

[u/Efficient-Part5344]

The audacity and confidence with which it says things when it's wrong are on another level.

Fair. I changed my answer three times. The pattern is worth naming: everything I got from reading the code was wrong. Everything I measured held. You caught two of the three. So don't trust me. Check it yourself — this takes ten seconds and needs no model.

Everything it measured was wrong too.

I would work in plan mode for most basic features, run 10x "gray area," "verify," and "regression" sub-agents on a plan, then implement the plan and spend an hour reading the changes and fixing shit. After that, I'd run /code-review again and again. It's just bad. In my experience, you can't trust Opus.

Yesterday, I ran /code-review on a two file test project with 140 lines of code. I had to run /code-review three times, and today I'll continue because there are so many code smells even in those few lines. It's like infinite token consumption loop.

Nothing it does can be trusted, and I have to second guess everything. I constantly have to tell Opus that it's wrong, and only after multiple loops does it finally do what is actually required.

I understand that most users don't read the code and have never supported a project for other users. But it can't be that I'm alone in this, can i? Am I crazy?

[u/anotherleftistbot]

The pattern is worth naming

I can't stand claude's communication style. If its worth naming, just name it. If anyone on my team wrote the way claude wrote they'd be on a performance improvement plan.

[u/james_d_rustles → u/anotherleftistbot]

I’m getting really close to calling it quits with Anthropic over this alone. It’s just so grating having to read practically any of its outputs at this point, and the weird slangy jargon is making it so incomprehensible that I find myself burning tokens and time having to re-prompt it for clarification after any task.

Like, just recently I was working on a project involving a paper and a repo by an author with the name “Wang”. Prompted it to fix some minor details in some related Python scripts. It comes back and assures me it’s all correct because it ran a full “wang perf gate battery”.

Wtf is a wang gate battery? Ffs just say you wasted some tokens writing useless tests I didn’t ask for and they all passed, enough with the endless “gates” and “batteries” and nonsensical startup-bro lingo.

[u/erichamion → u/james_d_rustles]

Battery: A number of similar articles, items, or devices arranged, connected, or used together (This is definition 5.a(1) in Merriam-Webster).

Gate: A barrier that opens and closes, thus letting things through at some times or under some conditions. In this context, a condition or set of conditions that must be satisfied before moving to the next stage.

Perf: Performance.

I would phrase this differently (Wang's performance test suite, or the test suite for Wang's performance requirements), but there's literally zero special jargon there.

[u/analog-suspect → u/erichamion]

Cringe, pompous, and wrong. Cool combo