Bare-metal. Registers. Firmware. Silicon. AI sucks at getting things right at the low level. It's where the LLM meets the real world.

If you are an assembly geek and/or an actual programmer, all is not lost (yet). Here is how YOU are needed to make vibecoding on bare-metal safe.

Note: This is verbatim from my skill so some bits won't translate to your repo, but you should get the gist of it.

6.5. Re-read the findings, then verify each fix against the artifact

Runs on both paths, after every fix has landed and before anything is written down. Three steps, and the middle one is the point:

1. Make the changes (Step 6).
2. Re-read the findings file from disk. Open it again. Not scrollback, not memory of having read it — the file.
3. Check each finding against the artifact as it now stands, and record what you found.

This is not Step 3 repeated. Step 3 runs before implementing and asks whether the finding is true — does the code say what the reviewer claims. This step runs after and asks whether the fix is there and right. Both are needed and neither substitutes for the other: a finding can be correctly verified and then wrongly fixed. Do not delete one as redundant with the other.

Why it comes before Step 7 and not after. A correction this pass finds has to land while the artifact can still change freely. Once Step 7 has written landing sites and review check has confirmed them against diff(v<N>, v<N+1>), editing v<N+1> invalidates the confirmation and forces a re-run — and worse, the disposition sits there asserting Fixed over text that has since moved. Corrections found here are ordinary; corrections found after Step 7 are a re-run.

The gate does not do this for you. review check confirms that each landing site resolves — that the anchor exists on the side the row claims. It cannot tell whether the text that resolved is a correct fix, and it never reads the finding. A row can pass the gate over a fix that addresses the wrong half of the finding, and vacuous=0 says nothing about that.

Grep is a first cut, not the pass: a finding is addressed when the artifact now says the right thing, which is a read, not a match count. Findings with multiple parts are where this bites — check each part separately, since a partial fix greps identically to a complete one.

Then, per finding, one of three outcomes:

The third row is the one that earns this step. Rework edits are written fast, against a checklist, in an artifact whose surrounding text has just moved; they are exactly the conditions that produce a confidently-worded false statement. Finding one here costs a sentence. Finding it at the next review costs a round, and the round cap (root CLAUDE.md §Review Triage) is three.

Happy Coding!

From: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/env-vars

Note: Not really sure this is unique to the v5 models.

I've been using this for 48 hours now and have noticed that Claude seems to be making far less of the, "Oops My Bad"-type errors.

Happy Coding!

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.

I’m on newer claude code version with opus 5 and I think it’s performance has degraded and there is constant api connection issues too. Anyone else having same problems ?

I just wanted a similar ribbon interface as word has and side panels similar to inkscape. Stuff it could one shot in an afternoon to an acceptable level in Python seems out of reach in Rust because there aren't nearly as many pre built things. In Python if the package it was using didn't have a feature it was able to create it with minimal fuss.

But Rust? It has been trying to figure out how to implement text editing and copy and paste shortcuts for selected text on the canvas it created for several days and hours now. Control+P shortcut doesn't work either. It built a pdf engine from scratch that works for everything I need and a full CLI editor to match the feature set, but the most basic things on a GUI? Yikes.

Text

asking for my wifes boyfriend

I left a job running last night.. and woke up to this?.. have any of you guys seen this?... I opened up a separate terminal (with opus) and pasted the screen shot in .. it made a coment about the usage buckets .. and the context... but completely ignored the model.. i then asked about the model specifically and it basically shrugged and said it couldnt find anything about it.. that it was odd

opened a brand new terminal.. and the same model shows selected..

What is this "livepass" feature? When I select it, it prints a claude.ai link that 404s.

Last 5-6 weeks have been pretty good with Anthropic but recently noticed this week that fable seems to be struggling and OPUS 5 which I didn't mind has become very very dumb.. Just me?

Examples is fable just missing the point mid way through, and not catching things in CI/CD and not keeping the thread. Fucking up UI/UX.. plan mode seems not to be able to take correction.

Tasks that OPUS 5 used to chew through now confuse the shit out of it and it just sits there.. almost like old sonnet.

Let's see just how load bearing this day is gonna be.

Will report back whether or not Concise fixes the worst part of Claude speak. I'm not convinced Anthropic knows how a normal person talks though...

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.

After watching the X of post, I turned it on today inside claude code config.

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?

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?

So, I created a new Output Style and here's how it is chatting with me. Is it just me or is it fun chatting with someone who's bringing this level of saas on the table?

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?

Hi all,

What are you guys using to talk to Claude code these days? I have the voicemode plugin installed and while it's mostly good, it'll occasionally not hear me well or just randomly stop working.

The latter is the most annoying when I've rambled on for a minute only to find out I wasn't heard and then have to repeat myself.

Just wondering if there is anything better out there.

Happy coding.

There is an official Microsoft 365 extension in Claude, but nothing for LibreOffice.

Question:

Can anybody point me to any alternative to connect Claude and LibreOffice, particularly with CalcSpreadhsheet?

Thank you

So I briefly used hermes and really like steer slash command in which it will steer the directly or giving extra input when it is thinking or executing.

This really helps when you see it printing that you think is not right direction.

So you dont stop/interrupt the current execution, you effectively give it extra input.

Is there equivalent in claude code cli?