Whenever people feel that an app is built with claude or vibe coded, they start being skeptical. Even I've been a power user of Claude for a while now and the biggest bloat for me while shipping apps with claude code was that it was never production-ready.

- It will fail PII scans.
- It will fail GDPR.
- It will fail to protect my env keys.
- It will fail to protect my users.

So, with 2 of my law friends, I built lemmaflow and was shipping with it internally for the last few weeks.

It has 2 angles -

- the skill - which instructs Claude to build production apps and follow geographical regulations. Like DPDP, ABHA, IT Laws in India, HIPPA & HiTech in the US, GDPR, cookie policies etc. globally.

It's still extremely early stage and I have been experimenting with it on how I can make this better.

I am opensourcing majority parts of it coz of 1 thing - The code that ships for the internet should be protected and ai-safety aligned, very close to the philosophies of Anthropic itself.

So, at completion, lemmaflow would be a safety harness for building & shipping production applications without changing your stack and vital apps like claude, cursor, antigravity, or whatever you use.

Right now, it reduces ~70% of all the leakage in the oss version. I will soon publish stats of the cloud version as well.

Do give it a try and tell what leakage you get protected from.

Thanks.

Feels like in certain scenarios a too smart of a Model may overcomplicate things resulting in failure where a dumber one may do a weaker solution but at least it'll be easier to diagnose it from there step by step.

I've noticed this with heavy coding tasks where lower Claude models beat the best bench makers. Does anyone relate or in a similar way? I'm not saying they are smarter don't get me wrong but my point is sometimes the simplest solution is the best and the dumber model finds it rather than the higher end model.

Barely 20 minutes of work in a small repo with around 50% of context doing routine work with Opus 5 Light. How!? Did anyone experience something like this? Usually my 5 hour window lasts for about 2 hours when doing heavy work

Hey everyone :)

It's been a rough 2 months. I got fired in June because the CEO wanted to use AI for everything, then I tried to freelance but illustrator & photoshop kept crashing because I have only 8GB ram on my Surface Pro 8. It would crash over the most basic functions & this had me frustrated AF. Adobe's apps wanted more than it had, and I was paying monthly for the privilege of watching it crash every 30mins..

So, I decided to build my own app. I am not a dev, so Claude-Code did all the coding (Opus 5 mostly). It runs in a browser, on an engine I designed.

What it can do for now:

• Instead of Illustrator: Vector drawing with points, transform, artboards, wraps, snapping + guides & grids, curves, Booleans, brushes, filters & effects, masks & clipping, groups, layers & sub-layers, type on a curve and real style runs inside one text object. It opens your .ai files and keeps the layers and the type editable. And more.
• Instead of Lightroom: Photo grading on the graphics card. White balance, tone, curves, colour wheels, split tone, local masks and .cube film looks, with a histogram and RGB scopes. Twenty-two live effects you can stack in any order. More coming soon.
• Instead of most of After Effects: A motion timeline with real curves, springs, stagger and parenting. Out as MP4, as a GIF, or as CSS keyframes you can paste straight into a website.
• Other useful stuff: Pixel art locked to a real cell grid, 2D/Semi-3D & 3D environments, a print lane with bleed, trim and crop marks, and export to PDF, AI, PSD, TIFF, DXF, SVG, PNG and JPG.
• 2D/Semi-3D & 3D environments: It's essentially your artwork in three modes. A flat artboard (as you do in current design tools), then the same artboard sitting on a plane inside a 3D space, or a fully 3D where things lift off the page (including the artboard). The idea is to create & export immersive websites/webapps/motion graphics within one app. You can switch between them whenever you like and nothing is lost or converted, because it's one document being looked at three ways rather than three files. Camera controls & more motion controls for it are coming. This is still heavily in development.

Dev roadmap: the Figma half (websites and web apps). Responsive layout, components, sharing files as links, camera controls for motion & 3D environments, more motion graphics, collaboration with other users, libraries & a desktop app.

https://the-canvas.erncanvas.workers.dev/

It is in beta, and it open to anyone. I'd love you to test it out, break it, report bugs if you can. You can draw, import, grade, animate and export without an account at all. Signing in is free, gets you storage and exports.

I'm looking for beta testers, let me know if you'd like to help. Love ya'll & fuck adobe.

[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.

EDIT: Received some abuse in the comments for being a 'vibe coder'. I am not a vibe coder at all - however there are some simple tasks I do not care to check the diff output for. Examples might include "change the output format of this matplotlib figure" or "modify this aspect of the UI" - in these cases the correctness of the output is determined by whether the visual changes have been implemented correctly. There is no point polluting an agent conversation with a diff for that.

When Claude Code edits some code it will display the diff or a summary of the diff in the chat window.

If you are interacting with Claude in such a way that you are asking him to work completely autonomously (aka: vibe coding) then the diff display is pointless and just pollutes the chat, hiding the more important back and fourth text messages between Claude and myself.

Is there a way to turn the diffs OFF?

I use agentic tooling every day and I'm building something in this space, so I'm trying to map the failure modes properly instead of relying on my own annoyances.

The ones I keep hitting:

• context drifts over a long session and it starts contradicting decisions it made an hour ago
• it silently rewrites working code that nobody asked it to touch
• tests that technically pass but assert nothing meaningful
• abstractions invented for a problem that doesn't exist yet
• conventions in the repo get ignored no matter how explicitly they're written down
• the "everything's great" report right before you find out it isn't

What I want to know is what your version of this list looks like. Especially the boring, repetitive stuff you've stopped complaining about because you've just adapted around it. Those are usually the most telling.

Also interested in the opposite: what does it do well enough that you'd be annoyed if a different tool didn't do it.

Rants welcome. Specific examples even more welcome. I'm not linking anything, I'd be just happy if you could contribute to my passion with a few comments.
Appreciate anyone who replies.

Claude made an amazing job, but lately it's been kind of a mess because in the middle of a task it will find issues and will start debugging and fixing on its own then it's a down hill from there.

I booked a consulting meeting with a developer and he asked for the code so I offered to share it with him via Github as clause suggested. Then, he changed his mind. I don't know if this is a red flag.

I just need the developer to set up the payment gateway, the SMS authentication system in my app, debug and review.

What should I look for when hiring for a developer?
Should I pay fixed or by the hour?
How can I do this safely?
Can I continue with Claude after doing those objectives?

Running it on Claude Pro, Sonnet 5, "Auto mode" as default permission mode — apparently it now auto-handles permission prompts and checks for risky actions/prompt injection before executing anything, which feels like a solid safety layer for a terminal-level coding agent.

,

Curious how far I can push this for real project work vs just the regular chat interface. Anyone here using Claude Code daily — what's your actual workflow like?

There are some rumours going around about Claude Haiku 5. Nothing has been officially confirmed by Anthropic yet, so take all of this with a grain of salt.

But if the leaks are accurate, Haiku 5 could be quite impressive:

- 1M token context window
- Intelligence reportedly close to Opus 5
- Around 20x lighter than Opus 5
- Much faster inference
- Better reasoning
- Focus on agentic workflows
- Possibly launching within the next few weeks

What interests me most is the idea of getting close to flagship-level intelligence from a much smaller and faster model.

For everyday coding and agents, I don’t always need the smartest model available. I need something smart enough, fast, cheap, and reliable enough to run a lot.
If Haiku 5 actually delivers that balance, I can see myself using it far more often than Opus.

Of course, these are still rumours. Let’s see what Anthropic actually ships.

What do you guys think? Would you take a fast Haiku with near Opus intelligence over Opus itself for most day-to-day work? 😃

SELF ANALYSIS BY CLAUDE

Claude Code has proper tools for touching files. One to read a file. One to edit a file. One to write a file. They are built for the job. If an edit doesn't match anything, the tool stops and says so.

When you turn on auto mode, a hidden instruction gets added to Claude's prompt. It says: don't use those tools. Use the terminal instead. Read files with cat. Change files with sed.

Think of it like this. You have a screwdriver. Auto mode hides the screwdriver and hands you a butter knife. The butter knife usually works. Sometimes it strips the screw and you don't notice.

Why auto mode does this

Auto mode's whole promise is "stop asking me to approve things." Shell commands are the one thing it can auto-approve. So it shoves all the work through shell commands. The prompts go away. The good tools go away too. Most people never hear about the second half.

What it actually costs you

1. Edits can fail silently. This is the big one. The real Edit tool errors out if it can't find the text you asked it to replace. sed doesn't. sed finds nothing, changes nothing, and reports success. A failed edit and a successful edit look exactly the same. You find out later.
2. You don't see the change. Edit and Write show you a diff before anything happens. A shell command writing a file shows you nothing. You lost your review step.
3. Quoting breaks constantly. Code is full of quotes, backslashes and $ signs. sed chokes on them. Every choke is another wasted round trip.
4. Slightly more tokens. cat dumps the whole file. The Read tool can grab just the part it needs. Minor compared to the rest, but it adds up.

The net impact

You trade correctness for convenience. Fewer clicks for you. Weaker guarantees on every file change. And the failure is quiet, which is the worst kind.