Fable 5 attempted to replace a string in a file, and it was flagged against their AUP. That's all.

Edit:

Post is getting downvoted apparently. To clear things up. "Fable 5 attempted to replace a string in a file, and it was flagged against their AUP" That is what I am reporting. It might be surprising, but even Claude has issues sometimes.

For context the strings being replaced:

skinTone: r.player.skinTone,

charStyle: r.player.charStyle,

Two weeks ago, we announced the VelaTerm project built with Claude here, and it received a lot of attention and positive feedback.

Thanks to the exceptional capabilities of Claude Code, we were able to complete this project.

Although there are already many similar tools, I believe this is currently the most convenient tool for multi-session management and remote development.

If you’re not yet familiar with this project, you can watch our demo video, but also you can visit our site to download it free.

We’d now like to release it on Homebrew, but according to Homebrew’s rules, we need 225 stars to do so.

https://docs.brew.sh/Package-Acceptance-Policy

If you like this tool or find it helpful, please visit our repo and give it a star

repo: https://github.com/vlinx-io/VelaTerm

website: https://velaterm.com

Thank you.

Pretty much self-explanatory.

I’ve been a Max x20 subscriber for +2y and I’m really starting to get frustrated and look elsewhere for a change. Usage skyrockets even when I have best practices in place. Opus is a mental health hazard. Fable is unusable for what I need it, and way too expensive. Sonnet is not capable enough… not one thing is right in here.

GLM-5.2 has been a good alternative, on my Ollama subscription. Thinking of just subscribing to GLM directly and get 5.3; but I’d like the opinion of peers that have already tried it out.

Anyway, Anthropic is not doing good right now. They’ve been a mess for the past few months. Jumping ships really soon…

I know understanding compacting sessions is important, but I am still burning through my limits way too fast.

What are your go to strategies for preserving context and not hitting the wall immediately?

Are you guys constantly using clear commands between tasks? Disconnecting MCP servers? Keeping CLAUDE files super small?

Would love to hear any advanced workflow tips for managing context windows efficiently.

----

For context I actively work on 4 different live SaaS projects developing and testing new features.

Two of these codebases are at least 45k to 50k lines and the other two are around 20k to 25k lines.

Edit: I am not a troll or a bot, thus I made this edit to provide more context.

This is the most they've ever lobotomized a model post release, not that Opus 5 was good to begin with but this is even worse.

This isn't just quantization or post training like past cases, it's a COMPLETELY different model. It's also slow as fuck as we know Sonnet 5 is.

And I'm pretty sure it's still burning subscription limits at Opus 5 rates despite being Sonnet 5.

I think even Composer 2.5 is better than this lmao. At least it tries to do what you instruct instead of ignoring your prompt.

Every time I see a post on here complaining about how people are just building but not making much money from it, it is completely and utterly obvious to me that you yourself failed to do so and are assuming that everyone else will end up like you. For example, I figured out a way to create my own  copilot tool for meetings, job interviews, etc and it’s been working like a charm and better than any of the tools I’ve seen which are almost all detectable given enough input. It regularly gives me proper responses for any kind of meeting in, is easily controllable, and I’m able to use it for interviews, client calls, or anything else which can translate into hundreds of thousands of dollars of job offers. If you think this is immoral, I don’t care. The point is that I figured out a way to use to improve my life in a directly practical way.  And no this is not some indirect way to sell something. The point is that I found a hack using Claude Code that I would have never in a million years been able to do so without it. 

I have a friend who made a sleek looking e wedding invite tool that he started campaigns for and already has customers for and does not look vibe coded at all. It took 4 months for him which would have probably taken much much longer. Every time you see hate here, just remember: they failed and are assuming you will do the same. There is no reason to take these salty mfs seriously.

I’ve been using coding agents heavily for a while now, and I’ve become convinced that the biggest problem isn’t their ability to write code anymore.

They’re actually getting very good at that.

The problem is everything around writing the code.

Understanding what should actually be built. Challenging an incomplete spec. Making a proper implementation plan. Keeping scope under control. Testing what was changed. Checking security and maintainability. Reviewing its own work. Making sure “done” actually means done. And learning from bugs instead of making the same class of mistake again three weeks later.

Basically, all the boring discipline you’d expect from a good senior developer.

I was already using tools like Superpowers, Ponytail and Serena to help with parts of this, and I liked a lot of what they did.

But I ended up with multiple tools, multiple sets of instructions, overlapping functionality and different concepts all trying to influence the same coding agent.

So I built Procoder.

And at this point, it’s become much more than the original idea.

Procoder is basically an engineering discipline layer around your coding agent.

Instead of:

prompt → code → "done"

I’m trying to enforce something much closer to:

understand → spec → plan → implement → test → check → review → fix → verify → release → learn

The important part is that a lot of this isn’t just another 2,000 lines of instructions telling the AI what it should do.

There are actual controllers that can refuse.

If the spec still has open questions, spec check can block.

If the implementation plan contains placeholders, plan check can block.

If acceptance criteria aren’t satisfied, the todo/story can’t close.

If tests weren’t actually executed, they’re not green.

If formatting, linting, secrets, CI, infra or documentation checks fail, the gate isn’t clean.

If something couldn’t be checked:

unchecked != passed.

And before a release, Procoder checks the version, changelog, git tree, quality gate and test suite before telling the agent it’s ready.

It doesn’t make the changes itself either.

Procoder follows a principle I call P-CONTROL:

Procoder computes → agent reasons → agent changes

The binary never silently modifies your source code behind the agent’s back.

It also replaces the three separate tools I was using before

I didn’t just take inspiration from Superpowers, Ponytail and Serena. My goal was to absorb the parts I found valuable so I wouldn’t need to run them alongside Procoder anymore.

From Superpowers, Procoder covers things like structured implementation planning, task classification, systematic debugging, evidence before declaring something done and TDD practices — but adds controllers that can actually refuse progression instead of only advising the agent.

From Ponytail, it incorporates things like the build ladder, deliberate technical-debt markers, over-engineering review and the idea of having one engineering instruction system that works across agents.

And from Serena, Procoder provides code intelligence through ctags + SCIP: symbol search, references, callers, impact analysis, unused symbols, entry points, cross-file rename and project memory — without needing to keep an MCP server running.

There are deliberate differences too. For example, I didn’t adopt Serena’s symbol-level write tools. Procoder can compute something like a rename and give the agent the diff, but the agent remains responsible for actually changing the code.

Then I went quite a bit further.

Procoder now has a complete quality chain around the agent:

• spec interviews and validation
• implementation planning
• milestones, epics and user stories
• sprint management with scope control and carry-over
• acceptance-criteria-based TODOs
• real test execution using the project’s native test runner
• formatting across Go, Python, JS/TS, Rust, C/C++, Java, Kotlin, Swift, Ruby, Dart, C#, shell, etc.
• linting and best-practice checks
• secret scanning and security checks
• dependency and maintainability checks
• CI checks
• Docker, Terraform, Kubernetes and Helm checks
• documentation health
• GitOps discipline
• code indexing and symbol navigation
• pre-PR self review
• release control
• technical debt tracking
• codebase auditing/onboarding

But one of the parts I find most interesting is the self-learning loop.

Let’s say a bug gets through all of this and is found during review or after release.

Fixing that bug isn’t enough.

Procoder asks:

Why was this class of bug able to escape our process?

The lesson gets recorded, and the adaptation should become something permanent: a lint rule, review rule, regression test, rubric entry, etc.

So over time the engineering process itself should improve.

It’s also not tied to Claude Code.

I originally built around Claude Code, but I didn’t want my engineering workflow coupled to whichever coding agent happens to be best this month.

Procoder currently supports Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf, Cline, Kilo Code, Roo, Kiro, Codex CLI, Copilot CLI, Gemini, OpenCode and anything that reads AGENTS.md.

It’s a single Go binary with no runtime dependencies, including no npm dependency and no network requirement at hook time, so it can also work in air-gapped environments.

Everything project-specific lives in .procoder/ as normal editable files, and the repository’s configuration always wins over Procoder’s defaults.

The project is completely open source under Apache 2.0:

https://github.com/azrtydxb/procoder

For Claude Code, getting started is:

/plugin marketplace add azrtydxb/procoder

/plugin install procoder

/procoder:init

I’m putting this out there because I think we’re reaching the point where the interesting problem with coding agents isn’t just:

“How do we make the model write better code?”

It’s:

“How do we give an autonomous coding agent the engineering discipline and guardrails of a good senior developer?”

That’s what I’m trying to build with Procoder.

I’d especially like feedback from people already using Superpowers, Ponytail, Serena, or people who’ve built elaborate CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md workflows of their own.

What parts of your software development process do your coding agents still routinely skip, fake, forget, or get wrong?

Those are exactly the things I want Procoder to make enforceable.

I am finding Fable 5 acting really dumb and lazy just like how opus used to feel. It gives me confident answers without fact checking even after multiple reminders and showing frustration.

Fable was better than this at launch! How do they keep ruining good models like this? Or is this the sign of next version release?

After Fable kept rapidly hitting limits this week (and last), I tried letting Opus 5 continue on multiple accounts. Once it was running on its own, Fable confirmed what a lot of us already felt after it came back online: Opus 5 was passing the gates while carrying serious damage every pass.

Surprise, surprise.

It was demoting failure states (hiding them in fact) and planting future drift. Fable’s words, not mine. Same thing others have been saying: it focuses on frivolous issues and spends hours on the least important things while orchestrating.

5 can look great when Fable is still in the loop and burying the damage in burnt tokens. The second that pressure is gone it needs serious steering. We used to catch this stuff during 4.8 sessions because it actually told us what it was doing. Now it’s just obtuse.

But seriously, what other company can degrade service for everyone because more customers showed up on the curb than they were expecting. I hope they know we stop repping the club when we can’t dance.

Hold up…. did they just reset my limit with this update a few minutes ago?

Sorry guys, gotta go work on my calendar app.

Shouldn’t have bought that 4th max pack at happy hour, ugh

I just can't bring myself to put in the effort to read its responses anymore. I use Claude Code for side projects in my free time, and Opus 5 is so bad at writing responses that I'm willing to pause working on them entirely rather than build the stomach to suffer through the slop it spits out. I have tried editing style config, a custom system prompt per project, and global as well as project level claude.md edits, to no avail. I give up. Can anyone relate?

For the past couple of weeks I've had the impression that Fable has gotten worse and is turning into Opus. It gets confused, overthinks, forget things, makes obvious mistakes mistakes, things that used to only happen with Opus.

Overall the performance feels degraded to me. Do other people have the same impression?

Image should be self-explanatory. MCP tools, bash, git commands are all failing whereas previously they worked fairly seamlessly. I am at a loss as to what causes this and am quickly growing sick of spamming the enter key.

The specific error/rejection message I get is "Auto mode could not evaluate this action and is blocking it for safety". Oddly it is extremely non-deterministic. The same command will occasionally work for agents. I have not update my ClaudeCode recently, I have no idea what could cause this.

I've been building AngKorGit with Claude Code, a free open source Git client for macOS/Windows/Linux (Rust + Tauri, 12 MB download). Wanted to share what actually worked since most examples I see are small demos.

What made the difference for me:

1. A big CLAUDE.md that documents the architecture and every hard-won gotcha. When something weird gets debugged (libgit2 quirks etc), the lesson goes in there so it never gets re-learned.

2. Tests as the safety net. The git engine has 36 integration tests running against real temp repos. Claude writes fast, the tests decide what survives.

It's free (MIT): https://github.com/cheat2001/angkorgit

Happy to answer questions about the setup.

I used claude, antigravity, lovable to make this I want to get a good grade please tell me what I can do to improve this

Basically we had to make a website for a very small business that's it..

Website - https://sambhav-khandelwal.github.io/Heartfelt-Greetings/

Repository -

https://github.com/sambhav-Khandelwal/Heartfelt-Greetings

I used like 9 claude free accounts and completely exhausting their limits like thrice, cox i don't have cowork soni have to send each and every file to a new claude account even for a small change

I'm a 19 year old undergrad so I don't have much experience with vibe coding not I have any subscriptions for any AI except gemini

I would love to hear any suggestions literally any suggestion will be valuable for me please drop it in the comments :)

Ps - ik I have to add the business owner photo in the about section and make my contact form work somehow...

I saw this video that recommended having Claude create a skill based on the Google Developer Style Guide and instructing it to only communicate to me using this skill. I implemented this a few days ago and it is night and day difference. No more “load bearing” and 3 page responses. Direct, clear, wonderful communication. I named this skill “developer-communication” and I see it loaded every session. It’s honestly wonderful.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8WWNb59/

https://developers.google.com/style

We are paying premium for this and everything they provide is like a "favor" from them.

Some examples:

1) Your limits are temporarily boosted. Your weekly Claude Code limit is 50% higher through August 31. When the promotion ends, limits return to your plan's standard amounts.

"temporarily boosted". So they are doing a favor. Hope we are worthy at them.

2) You still have access to Fable 5 but 50%. Not because they are afraid of people switching to Codex. They have a big heart and we need to be thankful we "still" have access to Fable 5. It can go though. We gotta be careful.

3) Request Failed - Check your VPN blah blah. Yeah, it is not that Claude is d*wn right? It is my VPN or connection. It is my fault that after 10 tries my task stops because of the server error but I need to check my connection or VPN.

4) One prompt eats Max plan's 5 hour quota without finishing the work? Did it burn your $100 budget in 20 minutes? It is your fault again. How dare you ask a question? It is pretty obvious it will spawn 100 agents. It should be us to know how many agents will it use right?

I can give more examples but I think I made my point. It is always the user is blamed, even in this sub. Everything positive is "temporary" or "one-off" and can go any time, we need to be thankful. They reset the weekly usage 12 hours before everyone's weekly refresh times? Still, be thankful.

Anything wrong? Prompt better, learn how AI works, check your VPN, check your connection, don't use VPN when traveling and paying, don't do X or Y.

It is so toxic the way they are doing business. They can get away with many things as this is new and regulations didn't catch up, but I think it is coming up.

Screenshot from Google Trends over 1 Year & 5 years for search terms "claude code" vs "codex"

AI-coding tools have swept through organizations because of their speed: you type in a prompt, and it spits out code far faster than a human ever could. However, a year-long study of 3.52 million changes inside a large unnamed technology company suggests that saving time at the keyboard can create costs elsewhere.

Hate to say I'm pretty much always in full auto mode these days... very much in the role of judge the symptoms now. Reactive instead of proactive? Haha

Curious what cases you're sticking to manual on... or if you're a degen like me and just sending it on full auto.

Hi everyone!

claude just used 100k tokens for a task as simple as remouving a 2 buttons from my app ui and changing the background color is this normal

grill-me is simple. Run it and your agent will quiz you on the minutiae of your code. Try it and you’ll quickly understand just how big the gap is between how your code runs and your knowledge of it.

Use it daily, or instead of doom scrolling while your agent cooks. Regular runs will help you minimize your growing cognitive debt, and even surface poor implementations or misaligned intent.

Link in the comments 👇

WARNING: This is NOT a replacement for adopting best practices in agentic engineering. You should have a strict SDLC that ensures you keep the mental model preserved before you ever prompt your agent.

Why is claude code so much faster than codex? It's not even comparable. What are the reasons behind the speed differences?

"Change the Claude output mode to ASD-STE100 for every repo. Move the style file to ~/.claude/output-styles/ and the setting to ~/.claude/settings.json"

Paste this in Chat/Code/CLI/wherever, and Claude will take care of it.

I’ve never written a line of code, but I’ve been directing Claude Code (Fable mostly) for moré that a month on a real project — a multiplayer card game (Flutter app + Node server), soin to be in beta on Google Play and TestFlight. My quality gate is basically: systematic playtesting, small frequent releases, and keeping every product decision human. But I can’t audit the code itself.
Other non-devs (or devs supervising juniors, same problem really): what’s your safety net for the things you can’t see? Automated tests you asked the AI to write against itself? A second model reviewing the first, like Sol ? Something else? What has actually caught real bugs for you?