r/ClaudeCode

Opus 4.8 is like a huge downgrade for complex tasks and Fable 5 is overkill. Opus 5 should have been somewhere in between but its just so dumb.
Any recommendations on how to use Opus 5 better and how do I delegate tasks? Which kind of tasks should I delegate to Opus 4.8 or Fable 5?

So, when is Claude coming up with a new and better model? I can't stand this shit anymore.

Hi guys, I have this coding assignment coming up and they allow us to use AI. Majority of my seniors who did this unit used Claude Pro for this massive coding assignment which I would say is a mid level code but has a lot of files (in the thousands). This assignment is also a very collaborative assignment and if I am not mistaken we are supposed to make a game. So I am wondering, what would be the better choice Claude Pro or Gemini Pro. Especially since they are about the same price which would be the better investment?

So, this is a post of admission. I admit that I need help.

I am a professional engineer, been working in technology for ± 15 years. Had CTO role in medium sized company (300 FTE), had several other lead roles but always kept my hands dirty.

I try to get with the times and I try to get the most out of Claude Code. I have the 20x subscription and off I went. I have been using it on and off for a year now, and I have to say that I am underwhelmed with my ability to make it work.

• Note that I am trying in earnest. I do feel I have a fair assessment of the capabilities of today's models. I notice that my workflow typically ends up in this: I create a single large PLAN.md with subphases. I spent quite a bit of time on this. I also create an architecture document that holds some invariants (like tech stack, test strategy, etc).
• I have a prompt for planning a subphase, which consist out of an analysis, clarification and write phase. I also have a standard prompt for implementing a subphase using those detailed implementation phases.
• I use an adverserial review agent (actually as part of my implementation prompt), on Opus Max on each subphase. The implementation phase also details that each sub-subphase should be committed and every commit should have a green test suite run.

I just let it cook then. But here is the thing; I get lost a lot. In particular:

• I start of reading all the output (plans, docs, questions) in detail, but I get fatigue real fast and then just glance at them or scroll through them. I typically take the recommendation for any clafification or decision Claude asks me, and I really notice that my thinking input is getting more limited as the day drags on.
• I don't read the code anymore. I used to care about code structure for all the right reasons, but I just can't bring myself to read all the code it produces, it is just mentally draining. When I read other peoples code (say, 4 years ago), I always tried to establish what mental model the writer had in mind. That is something I can no longer do as there is no mental model, there wasn't a human involved at all. The result is that I just "yeah sure whatever" it.
• In the end, I have a project with an enormous code base that I don't know, with a structure that I don't know nor understand. The code might be good, it might be full of holes. The only thing I know is that when I use it, it **seems** to work but I have no idea about security, logic, etc.

Even with all these problems, you'd think I would just make smaller pieces of work so I retain a sense of control. But no, it is so tempting to just let it do larger and larger things that I find myself disappointed in myself not being able to withstand it. Nevertheless, I love the feeling that I am productive, until it is already too late and I have lost all control over the repo.

No, if you stuck around with me until now, thanks a million because here is my question: what am I doing wrong? I have tried to lookup ways of working with CC but it's all just shrills out there that suddenly have the power to create something without any regard for security. I am really looking for a way that maximizes the value of CC for me, which I guess would result in:

1. A code base I feel I know how it works, where I know what logic is where and how it is proven.
2. A way of working that is not about me reading pages and pages of text (it really is exhausting) and trying to convey my intent better.
3. A way of working that is either engaging (so I stay focused) or hand off for hours on end (so I can do other focused work) with a strong preference to the latter.

I am sorry for the wall of text, but any help is appreciated. I really feel I am doing this whole thing wrong. I sincerely start to doubt if my brain is wired for this, and I need help learning new ways.

I’m a professional software engineer (as in…a software engineer before AI). I use Claude Code all day every day with a Max20 subscription and it has hugely increased my productivity. I believe myself to be an above average CC user who understands how to use it well, how to leverage plugins, hooks, etc. Just as I did before AI, I plan very thoroughly. I feed Claude detailed prompts, not just “my X isn’t working”. I keep my codebase well documented and write up technical guides explaining the reasoning and logic behind components of the design. I use superpowers (still) and jCodeMunch/jDocMunch.

The codebase for my current project is sitting at about 150k LOC and a SQL database of ~96GB. My results with CC have been extremely good. Opus generally does an excellent job. Token use is very good and I rarely run out of 5-hour session usage, though I am generally close. This is with subagents and usually at least 4 simultaneous sessions in different worktrees. I only use CC in the terminal, and unfortunately must use Windows for all development due to the target architecture of our company, although all of our API components are running in Linux.

When reading this subreddit, I often see lots of complains about the performance of certain models, token usage, model dumbness, “enshitification”, etc. Many users describe similar workflows and the same models that I use, but I haven’t shared their pain at all. I’ve often wondered if they’re just doing something wrong because I simply hadn’t experienced what they were reporting.

Because I’ve been using a lot of fable for some very complex cross-multi-repo work, I decided to create another Max20 account to get more fable usage. I just use /logout and /login to switch between them. The project level Claude settings, memories, etc are all the same. The system level Claude directory, settings, etc, all the same. Working from the same directories. Everything exactly the same. Not copied and pasted…literally using the same set of Claude files.

When I’m using my new account, Opus is slower than a 97 year old grannie in a 3 cylinder fiat. I mean SO slow. It doesn’t listen to longstanding directions in both my Claude.md and memories that dictate things like git conventions, code comment style, etc. Reasoning is often poor where it presents a suggested course that makes me go “… really? …” It is absolutely aware of the same directions as when I’m logged in with my original user, because when I call Claude out, it readily admits that it isn’t following the direction and dutifully quotes the relevant section of the Claude.md or memory file.

When I log back in as my original user, it returns to the Claude Code I’ve come to expect. I pretty much have to use my original account to review the work of the second account.

Now I am adopting a different view toward the complaints that I’ve seen and previously dismissed. I’m sure that in some cases, the user IS the problem, but this is a situation where everything is exactly the same except for the account, yet the results are so wildly different.

I don’t have an explanation. I don’t have a Claude-written analysis. Just sharing my experience.

I don’t claim to know what Anthropic is doing under the bonnet (I don’t think any of us do), but it would seem like different users are being “routed” to different infrastructure or something.

If I was only ever using my original account, I’d consider Claude Code both a great deal and an amazing product. If my only Claude experience was my second account, I’d wonder what the hype was about, why anyone pays the Max prices, and be jumping ship before my first renewal.

So very strange.

The limits are not the same as they were last week. How can you plan to work if you can't predict what you'll end up using for your coding sessions?

I just commented on someone’s post regarding their frustration with Claude, Fable, and usage limits. I am by no means a power user and get by with my little GIS workflows and web development using the $20/month subscription. I am just so curious after reading all these posts in what people are actually doing/making with Claude. What is everyone making that needs Fable and the higher cost subscriptions?

Jesus christ why

Pretty much self-explanatory.

I’ve been a Max x20 subscriber for +2y and I’m really starting to get frustrated and look elsewhere for a change. Usage skyrockets even when I have best practices in place. Opus is a mental health hazard. Fable is unusable for what I need it, and way too expensive. Sonnet is not capable enough… not one thing is right in here.

GLM-5.2 has been a good alternative, on my Ollama subscription. Thinking of just subscribing to GLM directly and get 5.3; but I’d like the opinion of peers that have already tried it out.

Anyway, Anthropic is not doing good right now. They’ve been a mess for the past few months. Jumping ships really soon…

Not saying the limits aren't real because they obviously are.

But I keep seeing people run one giant session forever, dump everything into context, change the goal 5 times, never compact anything, then wonder why Claude starts wandering and chewing through usage.

I get way better results when I treat it like I'm directing somebody. Small scope, tell it what finished means, make it test the result, then compact or hand off before starting the next thing.

When I don't do that, it gets dumb fast for me too.

How much of the usage problem do you think is actually limits vs people managing context badly?

What really sucks right now with cc on max 20x is usage anxiety. I'm not sure if it's because I'm using more tokens, or tokens are being cut, but it just seems like it's not nearly enough. I'm also trying codex. Overall, Opus 5 is simply smarter then SOL, and the 1M context window is difficult to live without, but I've also been using my OpenAI account for longer running tasks, and unlike claude, it's actually hard to use up the entire usage quota.

I've been running an operation basically continuously this week high and I haven't event used up half; I wouldn't dream of doing this with Claude. I'm sure for a lot of people just get 5 accounts is the solution, but that is more expensive so it depends purely on your budget.

On top of that we are supposedly getting 50% "bonus" usage that Anthropic keeps saying they will take away. I do like Claude more so I'll probably try to stick around, but if that 50% usage is removed, I think it becomes a luxury product when codex is much better value, despite Claude have the edge in performance.

I'm very conflicted about AI tools. I've used them for years for all kinds of things ever since their inception and I'm completely addicted to them. When it comes to programming it accelerates throughput dramatically and fills in the gaps almost too well. The loop is this right now:

less independent thinking → need Claude for context/design → Claude contributes more decisions → system becomes less internally familiar → need Claude even more.

I have a specific implementation in mind, but then I never just get what I ask for, there is always more contributions which would include a refactor somewhere. As the project grows managing context and architectural coherence becomes critical and I feel like I no longer have a solid internal model.

This coherence degradation is the fundamental crux of why I dislike using AI. I have to explain the project back to Claude and eventually Claude has to explain the project back to me.

Software is about standards, familiar patterns, documentation, a red thread, yadda yadda. But when there are gaps between your understanding and what Claude knows (and what you still believe it knows about the project) then this introduces drift, project rot and a sort of tech debt.

Large context helps, but if you don't have rails and own the critical logic and ideas about how the product will be used, then you will get an inferred result and incorrect solution for your needs. If something important is not present in the model’s context and cannot reliably be inferred from the code, the model has to guess.

This means AI often drifts toward overengineering. People complain about the models but it's really just an issue with your lack of scope. If I don't make a clear plan it will suggest an overengineered solution that creates a sort of contextual tech debt to the codebase.

I can see how these tools would accelerate a seasoned software engineer with great organizational skills and who's been in the business for decade. I'm not a professional . Any code I wrote before was mediocre at best and not so elegant. I struggle to the point where I don't want to do development of any kind because going back to "manual" coding is just going to feel like molasses, but I also don't want to ship stuff this way.

This nerd needs to shut the hell up and do his nerd stuff and tell me what he did in plain English.

I have been getting used to raising prs, then at the start of a new session with tokens, asking claude "there are 6 prs, please review them"

After 10-20 minutes and maybe 5-10% of a session's tokens it'll come back after having written comments or approving them.

Tonight though, it asked a question... "would you like me to use /code-review to review the prs". Hmm, sounds like there is a skill purpose built, surely it must be great.

After about 10 minutes (the build and unit tests are slow)....

"Let me verify what the PR actually contains, since the review results look suspicious..." "they are describing TTL changes rather than sessions"

"I found a serious problem: the review I ran..." uh oh... " against the wrong diff"

Then I hit session limits. In 20 minutes a code review used 100% of my 5 hour limits, and didn't even output 1 result for me. Even if it had actually reviewed the correct code, it made no comments and no output.

Is code-review only suitable for max plans, or is it just a grab for tokens. Grrr

Opus 5 is a training ground to understand why humans disagree with what it's doing. There's insight there that you can't get without otherwise doing a substandard job.

When a model is, say, 95% good at what it does (by a human standard of completion), there's less reason to explain the refinements needed to make any changes to get it to 100%. "Tweak this, modify that" means very little to an AI system.

When a model is, say, 80% good at what it does (by the same standard), some users will get the shits with it and leave, while many others will work with it to build out the improvements such that the model is more robust at the work that it's doing. Those insights provide Anthropic with valuable training input as to what humans want out of the systems that they are trying to build.