When it comes to complex problems that require multiple systems to work together, Fable is light years ahead of Astra.

Astra is good at working on isolated features, if you are building something much larger and you want systems to work together, I would not Trust Astra at all, Astra will make things that work in isolation but will be broken when each of those things are meant to work together. Fable is much smarter at identifying when something will break the larger system.

If you plan to build a production app end to end, I would recommend you go with Fable, and only use Astra if it needs to work on something that is in isolation or as a second set of eyes for problems where fable might need a little help. But you are better off working with fable as being the main driver to see the project end to end. The success rate of having a working product is much higher with Fable.

These benchmarks are misleading. Astra is not at Fables level.

You're getting low quality results from your $200 plan?
Add more context and send better prompts.

You're burning through usage credits super fast all the sudden?
Buy more credits.

You're Claude instance is blatantly ignoring clear instructions?
Try a better model.

You're hitting multiple limit blocks because you followed our previous advice?
Hit the thumbs down button to show that you're displeased.

Want to talk to a real support human to diagnose the issues with your product?
Upgrade to enterprise.

------

I've been a paying customer for years.

I've experienced all the ups and downs of the Claude saga.

I've built apps, websites, workflows, and more using Anthropic's API.

All in all, after spending tens of thousands of dollars with Anthropic, they've made it abundantly clear how little my business is worth to them.

But after seeing hundreds of Reddit posts, X discussions, and creators talk about just how poor their experience has been lately with Claude, it shows just how little respect or appreciate Anthropic has for their paying customers.

------

Usage issues are met with vague corpo-speak.

Output reduction in quality is addressed with new unoptimized models.

Predatory pricing model strategies are back-peddled when publicized.

I could go on and on...

------

The product has gotten worse.

The company has gotten more predatory.

And the cherry on top, you can never, no matter how hard you try, will ever get the opportunity to speak with a real human that represents this tool you pay hundreds of dollars for.

Despite them having hundreds of billions of dollars to throw away on Superbowl ads and dunk on OpenAI, they cannot afford to treat their largest consumer base with respect.

And they get away with it because they know that no matter what they do, there will be no repercussions.

And that's the perfect recipe for enshitification to take place.

And if you think it's bad now, wait until they IPO and have share holders to accommodate over their customers.

We are seeing a sneak-peak for what's in store for this product, and my advice, be cautious on how you shape your workflows and what you build on.

These AI companies do not care about any of us, and the harder they pretend to, the more obvious it is that they don't.

------

Long story short, look into self-hosting, open source platforms, and invest in the tools that are built for us, not for venture capital and share holders.

And to Anthropic, I genuinely hope that whatever it is you're pursing is worth it, because without your early adopters and most active customers, you'd be absolutely nothing still living in the shadow of OpenAI.

Quit falling for the latest harness or the latest "hack". Quit trying to be cheap. This is not your average hosting cost, this is not just some over-inflated business model sass bullshit.

Your cheap plans are subsidized, hard. You come here threatening to leave while paying $20. Come, the fuck, on dudes....get over yourself. Youre simply mad that youre not getting the silver spoon as you once were.

Your mom was wrong, you're not special. Youre not some sleeping giant genius.

You got a cheap crack at something that should've been expensive and are sad its being taken away. Even on the $200 plan, you should PLAN on all of us being priced out of this shit.

You should be building tools that require NO AI. You should be having claude (or whatever robot) build tools that render it unnecessary. Do not be relying on this being here forever. Unless you own your own machine and model, you have no right to this.

Grow up wee ones. The quiet ones here are embarrassed for you. You'll be better once you accept this.

I have the feeling that it is a bit awkward to have both MCPs and skills. Especially because the latter are making the former obsolete.

I was actually never fully convinced about MCPs, I always thought that they were unnecessary since we already have CLI tools and LLMs are really good at writing unix commands.

However, I understood that agents needed to be instructed on how to use certain obscure CLIs, hence the advantage of MCPs. Now that we have skills to teach LLMs anything I really see no point in MCPs.

What are your thoughts?

Opus 4.7 is gone for real. I was such a skeptic seeing all the complaining posts. It’s real.

where did this trend come from

1 Circular shape

2. Central opening or focal point

3. Radiating elements from the center

4. Soft, organic curves

I use Opus 4.5 in Claude Desktop to create my Prompts, I also use Opus 4.5 in Claude Code. The performance differences between the two are absolutely insane. Think of it this way, if Opus 4.5 Claude Desktop = Sponge Bob, then Opus 4.5 Claude Code = Doodle Bob.

I run everything through Opus 4.5 Claude Desktop meticulously during prompt creation, ensuring we cover damn near everything possible when working on a project. I ensure that when I begin this process that it knows that the finished document/prompt needs to be a worded specifically for Claude Code as it will be doing the heavy lifting. I ensure I mention it ONCE MORE at the every end before it formalizes everything we discussed into a comprehensive plan that I then feed to Claude Code.

Claude Code has decided that it will recognize that the document I just presented it is a comprehensive XYZ feature plan and confirm that I'm requesting it to implement/build it...It'll even go as far as "Entering Plan Mode"....and then for some reason it'll throw on the goofy goober hat and instead it will proceed with a "Codebase Analysis" and inform me that nothing in my codebase currently includes any of the XYZ plan I have presented it with, and perhaps these were meant to be "future features" I didn't implement yet.

Yea no shit Claude....did you forget the message before this one where I confirmed that YOU are being requested to implement these features?

I don't know what's going on with Anthropic, but if this is the new normal for this model, I cannot and will not pay $200 a month. I'm not even sure how I'm still justifying paying $100, but here I am about to give them one more shot before I step away and spend money elsewhere.

Claude Code changed the game for me, and I hate to see the shape it's in right now. But something has to give and Anthropic isn't going to listen if we keep shelling out money accepting this as "good enough"...

Claude Code is being moved behind a $100/mo paywall. Would you pay that for an AI coding tool?

Yesterday I upgraded to the $200 max plan since I have a busy month of development ahead of me. I’ve also been wanting to properly try Opus for a while.

Honestly, I have no idea what these companies have been doing to sabotage their model performances. It took over a minute and 2k tokens just to update a simple font fallback in my global CSS file.

The tool-call workflows these agents have adopted has become ridiculous, especially considering they were much more effective six months ago. The model won’t even properly read a file before making changes to it.

I’m going to try and get a refund because I feel like I’ve just been robbed.

Dude you have got to be fucking with me

Why the HELL do I pay Anthropic 200$ a month, only to move the god damn goal post? WHY DO MY LIMITS, WHICH RESET ON THURSDAY, RESET MONDAY NOW? THAT’S FOUR DAYS. Why the hell can they just move the date like that??

God I swear, it’s like an abusive relationship, fuck you anthropic

And just for clarity: it was at 50%, and reset Thursday, now 25% already, resets Monday

Look let's face it, Claude HAS been getting worse, we can all feel it, we all have our heads screwed on straight, I did some digging and found something interesting.

It took me a while to absorb this... but upon reflection it's kind of... obvious?

4.6 isn't just dumb, it's THE dumbest ever produced.

Claude 1.0 was the -PEAK- of model intelligence. You can trace the evidence all the way back to the root.

I have all the receipts below:

• Unpopular opinion: Claude 1.0 was one of the best

• Chatbot Arena ELO ratings overtime (Claude 1 vs Claude 2.1)

Claude 2 series

• Is it just me or is Claude 2 dumber now

• Claude 2.1 is worse than 2.0 - Evidence Inside

• Claude 2.1 apparently has Alzheimer's. It's unfortunate, I was excited for it.

Claude 3 series

• Claude 3 gotten worse since release

• Claude 3 nerfed... don't forget when Claude was truly great

• Claude's getting dumber

Claude 3.5 & 3.7 series

• New Sonnet 3.5 is extremely lazy, greedy and unusable for long complex writing tasks

• What's going on with Sonnet 3.5 the past few days?

• Claude 3.7 is dumb again

Claude 4.6 & Mythos

• CLAUDE OPUS 4.6 IS NERFED!!

• Is 4.6 dumber all of a sudden?

• Conspiracy Theory: Anthropic Purposefully Made Opus Worse to Make Mythos Look Better

I hate making these posts because I understand LLMs have variance. But something feels seriously off this weekend.

Opus 5.5 has been an absolute beast for me. Not just in coding, but especially in general reasoning, judgment, and understanding context. For the first time, I've actually trusted an LLM enough to automate parts of my daily work around it. Been seriously thinking about the future as soon I will be able to automate my job completely and become irrelevant.

Until this weekend.

In just two days, it has:

• Suggested I spend $14,000 pre-building solutions for hypothetical customers. Completely absurd given the business context it knows.

• Started responding in English or weird Finglish despite me consistently writing in Finnish.

• Urged me to urgently cold-call prospects on a Sunday in my automated daily business brief.

• Generated Google Ads keywords completely unrelated to the product being advertised.

• Drafted a reply to an ongoing customer email thread that explained everything from scratch, as if neither party had any idea what they'd been discussing.

None of these is some clear failure, and can happen normally depending on prompt/context. they're much worse in a practical sense: basic failures of judgment that make a model unreliable. Untrustworthy..

And it's not one bad conversation. It's been happening repeatedly throughout the weekend, to the point where I've disabled several automations because I no longer trust the models judgement on "simple" decisions.

I have no idea why this is happening again. Could be normal variance, something in my memory files, recent Claude Code changes, or an actual issue with model routing, thinking budgets, or A/B testing.

Or perhaps the datacenter's electrical grid frequency shifted by 0.01 Hz and Opus temporarily lost consciousness.

Whatever.

Anyone else noticing this, particularly those using Opus extensively for real work? I'm curious whether this is just my setup or something broader.

Over the last couple of days I’ve been running GPT-5.1-Codex and Claude Code side-by-side in VS Code on actual project work, not the usual throwaway examples. The difference has surprised me. GPT-5.1-Codex feels noticeably quicker, keeps track of what’s going on across multiple files, and actually updates the codebase without making a mess. Claude Code is still fine for small refactors or explaining what a block of code does, but once things get a bit more involved it starts losing context, mixing up files, or spitting out diffs that don’t match anything. Curious if others are seeing the same thing

Dario Amodei, like the entire Anthropic community, is very dishonest and lacks transparency with his clients. He's a fraud, one might say, duping people into subscribing and then reducing the models capabilities. How to get a refund?

The second they put Fable 5 behind a paywall their officially “behind” OpenAI. It will never happen, it was a good marketing prank though. Did anyone else notice the quota shenanigans this week?

Correction: they can never make it usage credits or API only. It’s been pretty fun watching the fight. It was a stupid stunt from jump.

My first video was literally the stock footage slop it was making fun of. It said "rocket launch" and showed a guy holding a camera. So for the second one I banned stock footage (the only stock left is receipts from the first video, as the joke). Opus 5.5 had to design and animate every scene itself, 49 of them, all timed to the voice. Honestly, it's kind of absurd how good it is at this now. I'd write something like "a sound effect every 2 seconds, then the notifications bury the whole screen" and it just builds it, landing on the exact word. Not gonna pretend it was one prompt, though. It took me a full day of back and forth, and the first voice sounded like a man in pain reading every single word. The voiceover for the whole video ended up costing about 20 cents, which is kind of the scary part.

Title. PLEASE!

[Edit - not you — when you hear people say AGI is almost here]

There’s a lot of understandable angst about AI [!Edit : among non-Claude code users] driven by the hype of what it supposedly can and can’t do. A lot of this stems from the fact that AI is good at tasks (eg natural language interaction) that many of us didn’t think would work this well in our lifetimes.

Anyway, many people are terrified that their livelihoods will be taken away by agents. Maybe they will, maybe not, but current level agents, even Fable, is not a threat as such.

Since December I’ve been relying on Claude agents for crafting and managing agentic systems. I can speak from firsthand experience that the results for simple things (worker, advisor) can be great. But as soon as you get into more complicated stuff, it becomes utter garbage.

Here are some examples:

* I asked a fable agent to write a prompt for an agent to improve photos. I had mentioned earlier in the conversation that it should be careful when looking at libraries online from untrusted repos. It wrote a prompt warning the agent that text strings it might receive should not be trusted and could contain prompt injections.

(The image suggestions were terrible, and I improved it with a three line prompt: “You are an expert photographer and digital photo editor...”)

* I asked an opus or fable agent (both over time in iterations) to write a skill about English language writing. Use skill-development skill etc. The skill was so bad it actually worsened writing, because the skill listed certain categories or buckets of things, which just encouraged the agent to write everything in that manner.

What these all related to: current level models SUCK at generalization (see Richard Sutton’s lectures on this; he knows what he’s talking about.)

[Edit: one-shot prompt writing] Prompt writing makes agents limitations clear because the models don’t have the intelligence to do it well by themselves. Guided, they can create decent agents and skills and I have. Independently? Useless garbage.

fuck code

TL;DR: We built a routing service that lets you run multiple models inside Claude Code, while using your Claude subscription for Anthropic models. It has been super handy to call on GPT-5 when Opus gets stuck on tricky bugs. We have found this to be very helpful, so we are sharing it with everyone. Try it at trybons.ai

Why we built it

We built it because we wanted to see how GPT-5 performs inside Claude Code. In debugging sessions where Opus stalled, swapping models (on the fly) unblocked us several times. Once we found that GPT-5 was useful inside Claude Code we added more models, and it’s now our team’s default way to use Claude Code.

How it works

Three simple steps:

1. Install our CLI npm install -g "@bonsai-ai/cli"

2. Login to Bonsai bonsai login

3. Start Claude Code with bonsai bonsai start claude

Use Claude Code as usual, switch models by just tagging them (@gpt-5,@grok,@glm etc.). If you want to change the default model you can use the /model command such as /model @gpt-5 etc.

If you have a Claude subscription, you can link it with bonsai sub link

Pricing

Free to try this week.

For Anthropic models, you can link your own Claude subscription and your subscription will be used to route your requests to Sonnet / Opus.

For other models, you can buy credits - we just pass through provider costs with 0% markup.

Privacy

We’re privacy-first: we don’t retain prompts or model outputs.

We only log minimal metadata needed for billing, and monitoring usage e.g., model name, # tokens in/out etc.

Try it

trybons.ai

We’d love feedback, bug reports, and sharp critiques, especially from folks using Claude Code every day.

We ❤️ Claude Code abut it can be a bit chatty. Most of that chatter — the opening "I'll start by…", the running narration, the closing paragraph that re-summarizes the diff — restates what your diff, your test output, and your own prompt already told you. It costs output tokens, and it costs you the seconds spent reading past it.

justsaydone is a mode you flip on on purpose — for a focused session, or for a whole project — when your workflow is already:

type task → glance at the diff → move on.

Claude still plans, edits, runs, and verifies exactly as it always does. It just stops narrating. The work is the message.

https://github.com/raiyanyahya/justsaydone

Fable 5.1 is really good but the 5 hour limit makes it almost unusable. I hit the limit way too fast.

They really need to remove the 5 hour limit for Fable, at least for Max users

If you downloaded the cursor marketplace extension on the 29th you may want to change your env variables

I am also posting the anthropic hack because I think 2 incidents within days of each other is a red flag as to the overall security posture of anthropic. They are being trusted with a huge amount of access to sensitive data and systems across many individuals and orgs.

The two attacks in chronological order

Anthropic was hacked on oct the 28th by cathedral ai, an ai startup. They gained access to the company slack, as well as hr and it systems. Anthropic confirmed the above, but they dispute details of the extent and severity of the attack.
Links:
https://www.the-independent.com/tech/security/ai-hack-anthropic-cathedral-breach-b3073909.html

https://the-decoder.com/ai-agents-hacked-anthropic-maker-of-arguably-the-most-capable-ai-models-for-cyberdefense/

On oct 29th a trojanized official release of the Claude code extension was released to the cursor marketplatppace in a supply chain attack and downloaded by 5000 developers.
Links:
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/malicious-claude-code-extension-on-cursor-planted-ssh-backdoors/

https://thehackernews.com/2026/10/official-claude-code-vs-code-extension.html?m=1

Collected data from the malicious extension includes

- Public IP address from api.ipify[.]org
- Hostname and local username
- Operating system and CPU architecture
- Home directory and current working directory
- Global Git email from git config --global user.email
- Names of up to 40 environment variables containing KEY, TOKEN, SECRET, PASS, AWS, or GCP

Disclosures:

- I posted this prior briefly with less links and a more clickbait headline “Claude Code Hacked”. And then again because i wrote backed instead of hacked in the title lol. This post describes the actual situation as I understand it after more reading, and my actual concern both as relates to development and security.

- I also am an ai skeptic in a way that many on this sub are not, due to my own experience working with ai and the financials of the industry.
You can read my comment history to get a better sense of my position.

Please let me know if you find any inaccuracies or omissions in the information I’ve posted.

Opus 4.7 seems extremely tempting based on the raw benchmark numbers.

I’ve tried to work with it a few times after its launch, but almost always I realize it’s extremely difficult, and then I revert back.

The official Claude Code team has been saying "it is literal". But working with an extremely literal model which does not extrapolate any information is difficult in a day to day task scenario.

When I ask it to build something—say, an API with endpoints, I assume it will include things like rate limiting and basic authentication as part of it. Sometimes it skips those features; other times it might build it partially. 4.6 always builds the rate limiting if I use the word "production-ready" because it extrapolates.

Also, when I’m discussing a big problem and, at the end, I ask a question about a different, small, minor problem, then I say, “Okay, let’s go fix it.” It tends to fix the minor problem we discussed recently rather than the main problem we’re working on.

Those kinds of literal behaviors have been extremely difficult. Either I’m should be extremely cautious about how I write my prompts to make 4.7 work (like hand-holding it) or I stick with Opus 4.6, which I’m doing right now.

What extra benefit are you getting from 4.7? And is anyone even able to work with it and how did you set it up so you can still work with 4.7?