One would assume this would be easy since you could rerun the same evals from release day.
Has anyone ever produced any proof that Anthropic or ANY frontier AI provider has "nerfed" a model after release? Everyone says it and I'm trying to steelman it first before I attribute it to psychological phenomena.
(credit to Steve Yegge)
Fable has been making great strides in architecture design and implementation on a large project I have been working on and since we are losing Fable on July 19th, I asked Fable to help implement a system where Opus could continue working on the plans we've created. It created a fairly sophisticated blueprint, state system and skills package so I essentially just prompt:
/loop /genesis-continue (genesis is the name of the project we are working on)
It has been working exceptionally well and a few people asked me about the details so I requested that fable created a generic version of this for repurpose in other repos while Fable is still available.
Here is that Fable to Opus handoff kit.
To be clear I only explained to Fable that we were losing access and I needed it to design a system so it could implement a plan for Opus to implement after Fable was deactivated in the Max subscription. All of the design elements were created by Fable on "Ultracode" effort
https://github.com/jimmc414/fable2opus_handoff_kit
here is the repo map:
opus-handoff-kit/
prompts/ ← paste into Fable sessions, in order
P0-bootstrap.md← skeleton + build log
P1-discovery.md← survey + interview → PROJECT_PROFILE + registers
P2-blueprint.md← stages, gates, decisions, trust, risk → BLUEPRINT
P3-verification-gates.md ← verify.sh + fault-injection proofs
P4-session-operations.md ← CLAUDE.md + SESSION_STATE + spec template
P5-customize-commands.md← generic commands → project rails
P6-first-spec-and-stage-briefs.md ← banked judgment + first PLAN
P7-cold-start-drill.md ← the acceptance test + HANDOFF.md
P8-burn-in-review.md← repeatable audit of real Opus sessions
templates/
commands/ generic versions of the seven original commands
docs/
BLUEPRINT_TEMPLATE.md
SESSION_STATE_TEMPLATE.md
EXECUTION_SPEC_TEMPLATE.md
CLAUDE_MD_TEMPLATE.md
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it’s the truth. If you don’t see the value at this point you are doing something wrong.
I’m happy to share my experience if anyone is interested but I suspect that a big factor in the complaints is that all of the AI scaffolding many have built to compensate for model limitations has become technical debt.
My suggestion would be to drop all of the fancy external orchestration and just provide Fable with:
And get out of its way
It seems like there is a perfect correlation with the capability of models and the average amount of daily complaints.
When Fable came out it was non stop complaining that its safeguards were too strict.
When Fable was pulled it was non stop complaining that Anthropic pulled it, ignoring the fact that safeguards were in place for a reason.
When Fable came back the complaints were about it being nerfed and why they are going API only on July 7th.
Now that they have extended the model the complaints are about why didn't you tell us sooner, why aren't you resetting usage. That they are just doing this for a cash grab.
It's tiring and I wish people would stop complaining so much and focus on the quality of the output we are getting. If you don't want to use it, don't use it, but stop annoying the heck out of everybody with the nonstop complaints.
I’ve been playing the Dutch Leningrad defense and I notice a few weaknesses and I wonder if someone has input that could help. I struggle with an opponent putting a knight on g5 threatening a fork, the open line the white squared bishop has to threaten my king and the tendency of my opponent to force pawn trades in the center and especially the opponent walking down king side pawns to break up defenses.