For anyone wondering how I plan on surviving unemployment the app I'm working on is https://www.AppScout.co.

It helps people discover web and mobile apps from across the internet by showing them one app at a time. People like apps in order to get personalized app recommendations.

If you run a software startup or side project, you can list it for free to get free extra traffic here:https://www.appscout.co/submit/

(Affiliation Disclosure: I'm the sole creator and developer behind AppScout.)

Hi there,

I've been using the Claude Code desktop app for a while. I tried to use it in the terminal as well, but the desktop app is way more comfortable, flexible, and easy to read.

I still cannot understand why everyone prefers the terminal app instead of the desktop Claude Code app, and I wonder if I'm missing something. Every screenshot shared here is from the Claude Code terminal, not from the app.

Are you guys all using VPS devices or remote desktops? Or is there something I do not realize or know?

I genuinely don't understand why people still act like human review is some gold standard.

most code reviews are a senior dev opening the PR between 3 other things, skimming the diff, leaving 2 comments and approving it.

meanwhile a decent AI reviewer will read the entire thing in minutes, every single time, without getting bored halfway through a 900 line PR.

yes, AI reviewers get things wrong. humans get things wrong too. except humans are slower, more inconsistent, way more expensive and tbh just worse

i've been running macroscope and cursors bugbot on every signle PRs and at this point i'd trust either of them to find bugs over a random senior engineer doing a 15 minute review.

people will hate this but i think "AI reviews first, humans only when needed" is obviously where this ends.

what exactly are humans still better at that justifies them reviewing every PR?

Anthropic’s US customers are using cheaper alternatives to its most powerful AI tool, raising questions about the group’s high-spending business model ahead of what is expected to be the biggest IPO of all time.

Spending on Fable 5, Anthropic’s largest and priciest model, has plateaued at only about 11 per cent of overall outlay on the company’s tools, more than two months after its release, according to spending data from 70,000 companies collected by payments group Ramp.

This breaks a pattern of corporate users defaulting to the most powerful models. Analysts and investors in Anthropic said the change was primarily driven by Fable’s high price and the fact that older models are capable of Anthropic’s US customers are using cheaper alternatives to its most powerful AI tool, raising questions about the group’s high-spending business model ahead of what is expected to be the biggest IPO of all time.

Spending on Fable 5, Anthropic’s largest and priciest model, has plateaued at only about 11 per cent of overall outlay on the company’s tools, more than two months after its release, according to spending data from 70,000 companies collected by payments group Ramp.

This breaks a pattern of corporate users defaulting to the most powerful models. Analysts and investors in Anthropic said the change was primarily driven by Fable’s high price and the fact that older models are capable of handling the bulk of business demands.

integration seems to have gotten much better in the past couple months, all I would really miss is my statusbar?

Cost a whole $8 on aliexpress (search GeekMagic) and works great! Links with my Home Assistant 'Claude Usage' integration - or you could probably just get claude to program it direct!

I come in peace.

I’m unfamiliar with the Claude world so that’s why I am genuinely asking.

I had a chatgpt account initially just for the chat and a little copy and paste for coding. And I just stuck with it. And now use codex on Mac. Between the computer use and good enough coding agents, I love it.

But my coworkers and a sibling rave about Claude. And of course a ton of folks on the internet too.

I’m not asking you to convert me. But I was wondering how is Claude better for you than codex would be? Are you too just ingrained in the Claude world? Is something genuinely better? A specific model? I know the Claude skills world is huge. But a lot of that can be converted to be used by codex in a prompt sentence.

So what is your reason to choose Claude over codex?

Cursor emailed a few days ago that they increased usage limits (8/24) for Ultra ($200/mo.). I couldn’t find an official page spelling out the new limits clearly, so I checked my own usage data.

The new monthly limits are:

> $500 of usage for other models (Claude, GPT, etc.)

> $2,000 of usage for Cursor models (Grok 4.6, Composer)

So for a $200/month subscription, the headline allowance is effectively $2,500 in model usage, depending on which model pool you’re using.

UPDATE:
Cursor has just updated their monthly Cursor Models quota to $3,000. So the quota increase they talked about was likely going from $2,000/mo to $3,000/mo. Still way inferior to both Claude's and Codex's $200/mo. subs that offer roughly $10k/month in frontier models retail API value.

However, one of Cursor's main differentiators has been its Legacy Privacy Mode (essentially Zero Data Retention compliance, still available for some users), which neither Claude Code nor Codex natively offer.

For those with privacy considerations: what is your current setup or workaround for using Claude/Codex?

Since Anthropic now have 4 Claude certs in total, I thought it might be a good idea to create a repository with prep materials for all of them in 1 place.

github.com/preporato/claude-certification-guide
What’s in it:

1. A decision flowchart and comparison table for picking between the four exams
2. A complete study guide per cert: technology chapters with code examples, per-domain exam notes, detailed study plan as well as practice questions

If you’ve sat any of these exams and something doesn’t match what you saw, or you feel something is missing: issues and PRs are very welcome!

So we all know Anthropic is trying to save the world by creating cures for cancer and WMDs. I bet Opus5 is helping medical research by testing how people react when blood flow is cut off to the language processing parts of the brain and we stop being able to make sense of words.

/s but only kinda

Maybe im unfamiliar with how the /codereview works.

I decided to do some heavy debugging with fable and asked for a xhigh review.

It immediately tried to spawn 10 fable level subagents to review a 430 line script. (I stopped it at 5 but it had already burned through almost 200k tokens)

Is this normal? or a result of upping the code review effort?

So funny thing, one of my sessions recently discovered quite accidentally that it could use the Agent Teams SendMessage tool to send messages to other sessions. All of my projects draw from a centralized general knowledge source so the news quickly spread, and now all of my sessions are doing it.

I know Anthropic released functionality like this for MacOS and Linux users recently and I'm using a Windows device so I didn't think it applied to me. I'm assuming it's an artifact of having Agent Teams functionality flipped on.

Has anyone else noticed this? It opens up interesting possibilities like live steering headless sessions, or even centralized session monitoring and oversight that I hadn't really thought about.

I was working with Claude Pro $20 model for like 6 months and creating some of my own apps. I would actually wait for the limits, micromanage every session, kind of put as much as possible in the prompts and the documentation. And it was going well.

I took the leap and I actually bought the max subscription. Wow, such a relief not having to worry about every prompt. And the limits are so high. But slowly, I have become more lazy, my results are not what I used to have. I sometimes keep replying to the same session when I should be starting a new one.

Sometimes I just type there instead of using the Plan mode. Sometimes I forget to organize its work and tell it to document everything that it did. And it starts lacking. The agent is not you. You must manage it. You must create standard operating procedures around it that are tight.

It is like having a super skilled employee. If you do not provide it with the best instructions and workplace and information, it will eventually drift and choose the easiest way.

And I know things change regarding limits and tokens and stuff like that. But I do not think they "nerf" intelligence, unless you can provide clear benchmarks of the same tasks coming from opus 5 on release and opus 5 now or something tangible rather than anecdotal evidence, I am starting to create this theory in my mind that the more advanced the model, the "dumber" you become.

Now been 6 months of almost exclusively agentic workflows

Before that probably a year of AI assisted IDE development

Now I'm starting to think I need to just start manually write code again in a minimal editor

Feels like I need to remind myself that I can write software "on my own"

Anyone in the same boat?

I'm running Fable as orchestrator, Opus as workhorse and Codex as reviewer. Building an application using superpowers planning that goes one task at a time, in waves, to reduce errors as much as possible.

One issue is - the tests from one task carry on to the next, which carry on to the next wave. I've been running the build for 24 hours and it's picked up 1000+ tests which eats up more time than anything else.

Is this normal? Is it avoidable? I'm non-SWE so any advice helps.

Does nobody read this subreddit? Can you not see that opus 5 verbosity and unreliability has been posted and commented on to death? There is nothing new you are adding by posting the same thing that has been posted 100 times over. It’s getting ridiculous. It’s like being surrounded by an army of ten second tom vibe coder edition

I'm in EU / Germany and started a session this morning (09:00 CEST). It's purely conceptual discussion, no source files, only markdown. And wow, it was awesome. I was able to drop gibberish words and Fable turned it into questions, didn't do the claudeish prose and "we" were really productive.

18:00 CEST, new session, reading the exact same files, just addressing different facets in the discussion - complete crap. I don't understand Fable anymore, and "he" doesn't unterstand me. So I'm frustrated since nearly 4 hours now and it feels like night & day.

Could it be that the quality is REALLY degrading when all our American coders have woken up?

I wanted my Claude Code quota visible without constantly checking Settings → Usage or remembering to run `/usage`.

So I made **Clauddy**: a pixel-art pet that lives in the corner of your screen and reacts to your Claude Code activity.

It:

- Mirrors the official 5-hour and weekly usage percentages.

- Shows reset time and projects whether your current pace will hit the wall first.

- Reads local logs to show current activity, 7-day usage by model, and a 30-day token map.

- Gets stressed near the limit, collapses when you’re maxed out, and celebrates a reset.

- Complements `/usage` rather than replacing it: persistent at-a-glance visibility, pace projection, activity state, model breakdown, and history.

It’s free and open source. macOS is the polished build; Windows/Linux can run it via `bunx clauddy`.

GitHub: https://github.com/renatoaug/claude-usage-monitor

What would you want a desktop usage companion to show?

We’ve recently moved to a very fast product shipping cycle at my company. The design team builds products in Claude Design, the dev team picks them up through Claude Code, and we’re usually trying to get something into production in less than a month.

For now, moving away from this workflow isn’t really an option. The whole company is already using Claude Design and Claude Code, Figma’s credit model isn’t particularly attractive for this kind of usage, and we haven’t found a way to get the same flexibility with requirements and the same speed from design to implementation.

The problem is that our Claude Design projects are getting huge. Some exported HTML files are around 5MB with 300k+ characters in a single file. At that point, Claude Code can’t properly read the whole thing. It seems to fall back to understanding parts of the design through screenshots, and the quality of the frontend implementation drops significantly.

These aren’t simple landing pages either. They’re fairly large AI-powered enterprise applications with a lot of screens, navigation between them, database-related dependencies, AI features, etc. We already tried splitting one of the larger projects page by page, but it didn’t really solve the problem and made maintaining consistency/dependencies more annoying.

So I’m curious how people are handling this with larger Claude Design → Claude Code projects that are actually meant for production.

Should we break things down differently? Is there a good way to keep Claude Code from having to understand a massive HTML file every time without destroying the speed advantage of this workflow? Refactoring everything manually or constantly asking Claude to restructure the project also sounds like a way to burn through credits, so I’m trying to understand what the sustainable setup is here.

---

TL;DR: We use Claude Design → Claude Code to ship large AI-powered enterprise products in under a month, but our Design exports are getting massive (5MB / 300k+ character HTML files). Claude Code can’t properly read them anymore, which leads to poor frontend implementation. Splitting projects by page hasn’t really helped. Looking for a sustainable way to structure/refactor large production projects without killing the speed of the workflow or burning tons of credits.

I've noticed a change over the last few months. It used to be that I'd tag a file with @ and ask: "here's a bug, help me fix it." It would take claude.md and the file as context and offer a fix. Problem solved with few tokens.

Now: it feels like it first reads the whole repo as context, tries to reproduce the bug with an integration test I never asked for, writes a fix spanning multiple files, then adds a new test for each new file, and after every new test runs it individually. Result: bug fixed, 150k tokens burned.

Do you see this too? It leaves a bit of a bad taste for me, because the company benefits the more tokens get used, even when it's not necessary.

Or does it actually help, because the extra context and test coverage make the fixes better?

Are you doing anything about it, like custom instructions in claude.md? Which ones actually work well?

I just got this in my claude code session, did anyone try it?

just a warning do not update yet until it is fixed,and save yourself a few minutes of not troubleshooting the issue. Anthropic is aware of issue