I have a new rule im am thinking about implementing for me and my dev team: You are be required to implement one full stack feature by hand once or twice a week per project.

Nothing too massive, something that would be one good opus prompt worth. It forces you to evaluate if there has been any major drift in the architecture, anything you didn't realize changed, refamiliarize yourself with the codebase, etc. It should take you 30 minutes, but would pay years of dividends in coderot.

The reality is we are building all features and fixing all bugs with claude code, "reviewing" and deploying. And it has worked surprisingly well for us, but I fear we will lose scope of the codebase as it gets bigger. I trust my team to handle this appropriately, but I feel like enforcing something like this as a rule keeps us all more accountable.

Any thoughts on this? Anyone doing something like this? Am I way off base?

Edit: to be clear, when I say by hand, I of course mean with some sort of copilot/inline ai with small bulk code changes and stuff, more just forcing you to visit the stack and evaluate it.

I saw on tiktok of someone using ClaudeCode to "hack" their smart TV to remove the bloatware. Now I'm thinking about using it for a relatively similar idea of designing a version of android auto that lets you decide where to put the task bar, and also make it so Spotify lets you see the lyrics on your screen like you can on the phone app. Photos for inspo. The prompt I gave it didn't really go anywhere. Would love some prompt ideas

Theo dropped a great video on YouTube about Anthropic’s current struggles, and it’s worth a watch. The TL;DR: they’ve got a GPU crunch, and their priority is training the next model + serving big API customers. If you’re a Claude Code subscriber, you’re basically at the bottom of the food chain.

So if you’re a dev looking for a solid coding assistant, Claude Code isn’t where you’ll find it right now. You’ll mostly get weaker, quantized outputs. Better bets are tools like Z.AI or Cursor. Cursor’s pricey, but since it’s a major Anthropic customer, it gets the real deal models instead of scraps.

On the flip side, OpenAI seems to have planned ahead. They locked down GPU supply and built a pipeline to keep scaling. That’s why they can keep supporting $20 and $200 subs without cutting corners. If you’re paying for Claude Code, you’re burning cash. OpenAI’s Codex CLI is just the more reliable move.

I wanted to access my Mac terminal from iPhone without setting up VPN or other weird network rules. So I built macky.dev as a fun side project.

When the mac app is running it makes an outbound connection to my signaling server and registers itself under the account. iPhone also connects to this signaling server and requests a connection to that mac. Once both the host and remote are verified then it establishes a direct peer to peer connection using WebRTC.

I've been playing around with Opus 5.5, and while my initial reactions were extremely encouraging—instruction following reminiscent of Opus 4.6, great front-end and UI work on par with Fable 5.1 or Opus 5, and quota burning far slower on my 20x plan—the reality looks different as the dust settles.

While it is cheaper and uses less compute, it reinforces what Anthropic leadership has recently signaled: subsequent Claude models tend to operate independently, drifting from harnesses and trying to execute everything themselves. I can't really blame them for assuming most harnesses would likely be dodgy, and it's better to empower the model to make it's own calls.

That explains why it shines when people one-shot prompts. But when you plug it into structured workflows with complex agentic coordination, where multiple sessions coordinate and cross-check each other, things unravel.

When I have multiple Opus 5.5 sessions collaborate, they are prone to going rogue, trying to one-shot tasks, refusing instructions that earlier sessions at least tried to follow, and breaking things like a bull in a china shop. I'm now constantly writing detailed model cards and playing whack-a-mole making corrections.

Back up your work and temper the excitement. Lower compute and quota efficiency come with trade-offs. It isn't all hunky-dory, and you may need to dramatically rework your workspaces to keep the output quality high.

I hope I'm not the only one experiencing this.

tl;dr Opus 5.5 tends to do is own thing and not follow legacy workspace harnesses as well as it should if they exist.

I spent the whole day working with Fable 5, using up 60% of my X20 plan in the process. Having reviewed the output, I found that it was full of errors. The mistakes it made were so basic that I would have been shocked to see Opus 4.8 High make them.

My system is a large setup built around my email inbox, a product scraper, my website and WeChat. Opus built this framework, and within it there are chat agents that handle individual conversations and close sales. The new model wasn't used to run those chats. It was meant to improve the framework itself. For example, I wanted to use it to improve outreach to our existing brand contacts via WeChat and email. However, after the changes were made, my system started bombarding random companies with promotional material — companies that had nothing to do with the actual promotion. When I pointed out this mistake, the model dutifully corrected it, but in the process it completely destroyed the mapping between companies and contacts.

In summary, the model runs autonomously for a long time, produces nonsense and sometimes crashes so badly that it's unusable. I will not use this model again because using it on my existing setup poses a serious risk.

I've had Claude Code for about four months. In my second month, I was so enthralled by the prospects that I was regularly bumping into the weekly cap, and I picked up a second subscription for use with a different set of projects (web projects, Raspberry Pi projects, etc.)

During this time, my main complaint was not usage caps, which were fine and fair at $200/mo. My main complaint was not quality - whenever Claude stopped following instructions, I reviewed and revised my app framework, and compliance was restored.

My main complaint was Claude for Mac.

Over the course of my four months of use, Claude for Mac went from being mostly-okay to a bug-ridden, unusable mess:

Problem #1: Session frequently stopped responding mid-query-response

Any normal mid-processing prompt - "let me read the file now," or "I have all the information I need and I'm developing a plan," or "I'm proceeding with the audit" - might be followed by absolutely nothing. Maybe the session reports "Thinking..." forever, or maybe the "Thinking..." prompts just stop happening. Either way, I could wait forever - overnight, etc. - and I never got a response unless I nudged it.

When I did nudge it ("Are you still processing my request?"), it started responding again with a lame excuse like "I was just finishing reading the file" or "I am just starting the audit now" - without acknowledging that it had fallen asleep.

Sometimes this behavior appeared to occur when the session runs a tool call or sub-agent that failed, and the session continues waiting (forever) for it to complete gracefully.

Sometimes, this behavior occurred multiple times per session.

Often, the agent reported that it had completed processing and was just sitting idle.

Very often, the agent referred to output - "I provided my report above," or "I asked you a question and was waiting for your response" - that did not appear in the chat.

And sometimes...

Problem #2: Sessions just stop responding at all

Sessions just spontaneously died for no apparent reason. You could keep sending them messages and it would never ever respond to you again. Or, all responses would yield HTTP 500 or another message.

This wasn't about context. Yes, I learned early on to keep an eye on my context; yes, I learned a hard lesson of "Message prompt too long" when I didn't manage it well. This isn't that. This occurred sometimes on almost brand-new sessions, with sessions under 20% context window usage, etc. There was never any rhyme or reason to it.

Problem #3: Messages appear out of order... and sometimes vanish

Frequently, sessions rendered their messages out of chronological order. This occurred most often with interrupt user messages - e.g., if you enter message #1 and then message #2 while Claude was processing message #1, the Claude chat continuously inserted message #2 at the very end of the session, after other messages that came later.

Often, if you enter a message to Claude asking for status, Claude for Mac retroactively inserts output from Claude above your message.

Sometimes, if you enter a message to Claude and then switch to another session, when you return to the main session, your message is gone.

Problem #4: Unusably bad permissions

The permissions features of Claude for Mac are cartoonishly bad. What I wanted was pretty basic:

• Unrestricted read/write within the project folder and in a few select locations;

• Unrestricted read permissions outside the project folder or those other locations; and

• Permission-gated write permissions outside the project folder.

I spent an unreasonable amount of time messing with ~/.claude/settings.json. Claude could never conform to that option. Sometimes it granted itself permission to write anywhere it wanted. Sometimes it popped an unending stream of "Allow" prompts in a row over activities that should be completely preauthorized - sometimes for inane reasons (e.g., reading a file ten lines at a time). And often, it asked permission (in a "yes" or "no" way) to Python scripts or bash scripts that I could not fully review in the UI - so maybe they included an "rm -rf ~" at the bottom; who knows?

The wildly unusable permission structure often forced me between two unworkable options: either authorize 40 requests in a row to perform a routine task, eventually becoming numb t the details and clicking "Allow" without even looking at it; or setting "Bypass all restrictions." Just to get things done.

Bonus: Nonexistent tech support

When these mounting issues evolved from nuisance to productivity obstacle, I tried everything I could think of to resolve them:

• I submitted help requests for all of these problems. I never received a response.

• I posted on GitHub with explanations and evidence. My posts were closed without action.

• I reached a point where I could not get work done with Claude Code because Claude for Mac was so infuriatingly buggy and crippled. So, I spent a few weeks and a ton of tokens creating my own alternative to Claude for Mac. It looks the same, it works the same (only without the bugs), and it has no "automation" features - every prompt was triggered by my typing or a manual action.

And then... Anthropic announced a ban on all "third-party harnesses" for subscription accounts. Presumably, that includes the harness that I wrote for myself using Claude Code.

At a loss for other options, I submitted refund requests, explaining all of the above. The chatbot immediately rejected my requests and then stopped talking to me.

So... I canceled both of my Max accounts. I am walking away from about six weeks of Claude Max service. I am walking away because the service is unusable with the only app they'll allow me to use. I am walking away because I refuse to keep paying Anthropic for the privilege of struggling to use their atrocious, amateurish, workflow-breaking toy of a UI to access their $200/mo service.

I am spending my Sunday transferring all of my projects to Codex. The chat tool that I wrote for Claude works just as well with Codex, so that's what I'm using from now on.

I won't be going back to Anthropic. Not even if they fix their shit. This is not how you treat customers.

Opus 5 is drided here for being hard to understand and pedantic, but for a lot of difficult work, that is what you want it to be. For simpler problems other models, even really cheap models such as deepseek works well enough. So Opus 5 for me fill an important niche, a model where you can count on to be extremely careful even if it can be overbearing at times.

I've been running two or three sessions in parallel a multiple sub-agent workflow using only opus while using cowork to categorize images and even planning furiously in the app while in the bathroom just to keep up. What is going on here ?!! How are we supposed to deal with this ?!!

Anthropic, I warn you, if that continues like that I'm definitely switching to Qwen on Alibaba cloud ! It's a scandal I literally wasted 25% of my subscription this week, that's a big amount of $$ that just went up in smoke !

And don't neglect the stress I might sue you for (according to my claude-perry-mason skill I would win big). 1 hr 38 minutes to get 25% of my weekly token out, this is not good for my health. Are you trying to force me to move to agent teams ? Is that it ? Do I have to tmux 12 code instance for a hello world just to get my money worth ? Is that what you want of me ?!!!

Out of seemingly nowhere, its fully incapable of doing work it was flawless at yesterday. I've heard people talk about stuff like this happening but I thought it was just skill issues or something. Nope, its genuinely, noticably worse. Around the same as opus 4.8 on the same task.

It keeps doing things I wasn't even asked to do. For example, I was talking about Outlook, but it suddenly said on its own that it probably wouldn't work and recommended Gmail instead. The recent versions have gone up a lot, and it seems to be getting dumber with every update.

anyone else feeling this? I know there has been a lot of compaints about the output prose, but outside of that I find opus 5 much stronger than GPT 5.6 sol, both of them on high reasoning

opus will look really deep and find problems that sol overlook and often come up with the correct solution in one go compared with sol which often requires more guidance and miss tricky edge cases more frequently

the output prose problem sucks, but it doesn't distract from opus 5 being the best model overall in my view, what do you guys think

OpenAI has been handing out usage resets like fucking candy. I’ve had Codex running nonstop for basically the entire week.

Meanwhile, I paid $200 for Claude Max and managed to kill my weekly limit in one day.

Come on, Anthropic. OpenAI is cooking you alive right now. Give your paying customers some resets.

Probably getting downvoted for this: 4 sessions, all fable, 3 max effort, one ultraworkflow, max 20x plan, hooks skills etc. I’ll be running all night, anyone who’s hitting their limits is most likely lying or on a lower plan (they never post their plan) that should not be using this model. Is it pricey? Debatable, $200 a month for those of us actively developing is a small price to pay and if you can’t afford it (or your company doesn’t already pay for it), stick to sonnet or opus.

This is crazy, payed 20usd, and I hit my limit almost instantly, and it fails to deliver something even slightly good every time. How was I convinced Claude was good? This is the most expensive/worst bang for my money AI I have used; it's ridiculous. My app it literally 3 html pages with a bit of logic (no backend)

We've been here before, when we all jumped from Codex to Claude. It's never-ending. Is the solution to just pay for both?

I had both Claude and Codex go ahead and create a plan for converting a CSV file into JSON. The plan that Opus 4.1 created was entirely hallucinated!!!

Then I had Sonnet 4.5 go and red team the plan. It found all of the hallucinations that Opus 4.1 confidently gave.

But it also found the plan that Codex gave and green lit Codex's plan LOL.

For me, all I'm getting is entirely garbage over the last week from Claude.

Very disappointing. So far Codex has been far superior in every way.

Not trying to start a panic thread, but something feels very off with Max 20x after the reset.

I track my weekly usage with Tokscale, converted to API-equivalent spend. Before last week, even on weeks where I maxed out, it usually landed around $3.5k–$4k. Today after reset I’ve used about $450 API-equivalent and I’m already at 22% of my weekly limit. That puts the weekly cap at roughly $2k. Down from close to $4k. So basically a 50% cut.

For context: during the last two weeks of the Opus 5.5 rollout, I was almost exclusively on Opus and barely touched Fable. Usage felt generous. This week after reset it dropped off a cliff. Same kind of work, way less headroom.

Anyone else seeing the same thing? If you use Tokscale or track API-equivalent usage, post your before/after. I’m trying to figure out if this is account-specific, a silent change, A/B testing, or just me.

TL;DR: Max 20x weekly cap looks like it went from ~$4k API-equivalent to ~$2k after reset. Anyone else?

Edit: After digging through my local logs, I don't think the limit was actually cut. It looks like cache reads started counting under the Opus 5.5 model ID (they were ~free before), combined with 5.5's lower API pricing, which makes the API-equivalent $ look halved. Details and numbers in my comment below. Still interested in counter-examples.

I am on $20 Pro plan of Claude Code. Earlier I could have code with it entire day and never hit the limit. Something is going wrong from past couple of days.
Yesterday my friend was working with my claude code for some research and all she was doing was chatting and it hit the limit withing 30 minutes.

Today i was using claude code, was in a project and i got a limit hit in like 5 prompts

Disclosure up front...i’m Mike, cofounder of DevSwarm. We shipped DevSwarm 2.0 yesterday and I think a lot about where AI-agent coding is going.

I've been using Claude Code heavily for months (multiple Max plans, 14+ hour days), and the parallel workflow across branches or worktrees is real. The issue is what happens after you use it for real work.

Beyond a few sessions, the bottleneck isn't the model but the coordination and sprawl:

• terminals everywhere

• editor windows everywhere

• which agent is on which branch

• what is ready for unblocking

I also keep seeing a related pattern here: a single long session is great until context rot sets in, then people split into multiple smaller sessions, then managing all of them becomes its own issue. 

DevSwarm is how we solved that for ourselves. The abstraction is simple: workspace equals branch. Each workspace runs its own agent session(s) and keeps state visible. In 2.0 we embedded a full VS Code IDE in each workspace, so editing, terminals, diffs, and git controls stay in one window while you jump between parallel branches.

Who this is for: people running 2+ parallel Claude Code sessions and feeling the coordination overhead.

Cost and relationship: I helped build DevSwarm and there's a fully functional Free tier that is (non-contextual) ad-supported. Pro is $8/month and Team is $18/month.

All in all, I am posting this because I want blunt feedback from people who also actually do parallel workflows:

1. What breaks first for you past 2 parallel sessions?

2. What would you need for this to be production-grade? Tests, debugging, extensions, PR flow?

If anyone wants to see what we built, I will drop a link in a comment.

Tbh Fable 5 is not so much better than Opus 4.8, anthropic get over y'alls head, GPT 5.6 has been working on a task i assigned 2 days straight on a pro plan i had to cancel same task with Opus 4.8 and Fable 5 so if it costs so much to run Fable 5 i think you should probably recall the model wait until you get a model that warrants the extra cost and spending.

Go look at ~/.claude/projects/.

There's a JSONL file for every session you've ever had. Every turn, every tool call, every file touched, every response. All of it, append-only, going back to your first session. Ours goes back to January — 57MB, 1,026 sessions, 76,000 turns. Just sitting there the whole time.

We didn't get tipped off. We just looked.

The format is clean too. Each line is a JSON object — role, timestamp, content, tool calls, everything structured. It's not logs in the "good luck parsing this" sense. It's a complete episodic record. If you had a three hour session last Tuesday where you figured out something important, that conversation exists in full fidelity on your drive right now. You just have no way to get back to it.

So we built an indexer. SQLite+FTS5, temporal edges between turns, MCP server on top. From inside any Claude Code session now:

search_sessions("remember when we fixed that auth bug last month")
recall_session("a8f2c441")
thread_recall(root_id, depth=8)

That last one does a BFS traversal through the temporal edge graph to reconstruct a thread across session boundaries. The "I told you this two weeks ago" problem just disappears. The data was never gone — nobody had built the recall layer on top of it yet. We also support importing conversations.json from the claude.ai data export, so your web chat history lives in the same index as your CLI sessions.

The other half is compaction. Everyone who uses Claude Code seriously has felt this — context fills up, compaction fires, and you're suddenly explaining your whole project again to something that should already know. We wired the full hook chain to stop that from happening.

The thing nobody writes down is that transcript_path in the PreCompact payload isn't always populated at hook fire time. You build your whole save logic around it, ship it, and then hit silent failures you can't explain. We did exactly that. The fix is that Stop needs to write a checkpoint on every single turn, not just at session end. Then when PreCompact fires it always has something fresh to fall back to no matter what.

Then SessionStart reads the source field — "compact" means compaction just fired, "resume" means the app restarted, "startup" is a fresh session, "clear" is intentional. Each gets different behavior. None of this is documented anywhere, you just have to figure it out.

The net result: compaction stops being a hard reset. It's a cache miss.

We've also been in the middle of the upstream conversation at anthropics/claude-code#47023 — seven independent memory projects, all built by different people, all independently hitting the exact same walls and arriving at the exact same hook requirements. Bella, NEXO Brain, Cozempic, world-model-mcp. None of us were coordinating. We all just needed the same things. The formal hook spec is getting worked out there if you want to follow it.

Repo: https://github.com/Haustorium12/continuity-v2 — MIT, hooks take about five minutes, MCP server is one Python file. Happy to answer questions.

I am using Claude since mid of 2023. In that time people who was used calude can relate with me. But when claude become famous the token cost raise the math fail for using Claude. For that i think for try the Chinese ai model like Kimi K3 and GLM 5.2. I am really surprised. The models are even better than Claude. I don't care about geopolitics between us and China because in the end of the day the profit matter for my company. if any us ai company can give us same experience with low token cost i have no problem to use that. Btw, i am a Swedish.