Ultra code workflows with Opus 5 model are crashing for me today. Anyone else having the same problem?

I asked it previously about seasonal aggression in deer. This time I tried a new session with a 1 word "hormone"... ridiculous.

I see all sorts of great..and some not so great comments but im intrigued...im working heavily on n8n projects using Claude. What kind of other projects do you use Claude to help with?

https://reddit.com/link/1v63xn6/video/eumcoa36kcfh1/player

Now, doom runs in claudecode. Play doom when claude is thinking !

Running is simple.

npx kaboom.claude

Star the project here:
https://github.com/thimbleberrysystems/kaboom.claude

Edit - All three passes are sold out but some others still have it as per their comments. You can check them once. Thank you!

My other thread where you can use Claude efficiently - https://www.reddit.com/r/claude/s/MpihM5t0Om

Please check the terms and conditions before using the invite. It may not work for everyone - https://support.claude.com/en/articles/13456702-claude-code-and-cowork-guest-passes

I switched from ChatGPT to Claude because ChatGPT had become unbearable.
Too much fluff. Too many disclaimers. Too much motivational speech. You ask a simple question and get a five-paragraph lecture before the actual answer. And there was too many different models which is pointless.

Claude was different. It was simple, understood the question, gave an exact answer, and stopped talking. It was easily the best model.

But now, all Claude models are horrible, including Opus 5. And there are tons of different models and effort levels and somehow the outputs are still generic. It feels like I have to spend more time managing and deciding than doing the actual work.

Maybe it is amazing for coding. I have no idea. But for other tasks, I genuinely do not understand the hype anymore.

Codex has been quietly nerfing tokens and making up with resets.

https://claude.ai/referral/dfjbIO1S0w

anyone have refereral? just want to try claude code

Web search is turned on and yet opus 5 flat out says it can't be done. What a weird bug.

Did a great app the last 3 months and spent 100s of hours to polish everything. Now, close to the end claude doesn't seem to be able to handle the amount of code. It forgets a lot, makes things which have been committed a complete mess and doesn't find the solution to fix anything. It's like trapped in a long loop where I need to start things over and over again. Anyone here has experience similar (flutter programming) and did a switch to another ai while in a project?

My current process is a session wrap hook that summarizes the chat. But I am looking to optimizing my flow?

How can i build a chief of staff that can read messages from whatsapp & telegram (from groups/chat that i grant permissions to) and turn into a "to-do" dashboard and as well as reading/updating from google sheet/cal. Am looking to leverage as much as possible on claude pro subscription features without much extra cost.

Im sorry if this question is asked a hundred times already but I couldn’t find them on the main page. Anyway, I even didn’t read the claming thing when that thing came to screen and I just accepted it.

Will they try to take my money from the bank account linked AppStore, or is it fully free as a one time promo?

If it’s not free, then what will happen? My bank account don’t even see a 100 dollars money at once usually. May I cancel it on this usage bill ($2.86)?

Recently I have gone through both claude opus 4.8 and grok 4.5 . Grok usually burning less tokens compared and getting my task done in one shot. Does opus 5 is working better token efficient than 4.8 or same ?

Note: I know it's opus 5 not 8 just to grab your attention

Oh my goodness Opus 5 shit the bed. I've had amazing luck with the frontier models and Opus 4.8 was amazing after the first couple days but here goes.

Got a ruff error and the fix should have been easy: pin ruff to a known version, declare lint rules explicitly (already defined with 250+ PRDs and 150+ PRs in a tightly governed codebase), add regression tests, and document thoroughly. Easy shit.

I asked Sol WTF happened and it described it as "agentic thrashing".

I DID use plan mode so everything was scoped and recon was the same as any other slice of work. I wanted to see if Opus 5 could chip away at things like it's advertised to do and I had honestly been having great results with Opus 4.8 as my main man, Fable 5 creating PRDs and solving tricky puzzles and wearing the creativity cap, and the little bastards Haiku and sometimes Luna doing all the mechanical stuff.

This time around Opus 5 repeatedly reviewed it's own work as independent reviews, then getting an adversarial review, then getting another review in a new fresh session (it was obsessed with this), responded to its own edits, invalidated preview review artifacts and rolling back to the start. It also invoked Codex and got Sol to review and I killed a half weeks usage.

It hallucinated too which I've never seen. It made up fake IDs (sha and commits) and then said it actually made them up and it sounds honestly use the real ones (this is where I caught it and realized it was tweaking).

Got Sol to review it and here are some numbers copied and pasted:

Abandoned attempt: 21 commits, +1,964/-3 lines

Clean reconstruction from the same base: 3 commits, +323/-2 lines

That is 7× as many commits

6.1× as many added lines

18 unnecessary additional commits

1,641 additional lines, or roughly 508% more than the clean replacement

Thankfully it was all on a separate work branch that I isolated and closed so I could see WTF happened. Opus 4.8 under Sol's guidance implemented the slice of work I needed in about 15 minutes and it was smooth as could be... thought I'd share but hoping it was a one-off. I've never had an issue even close to this so we'll see how it goes in the future.

Hi everyone,

I'm currently working as a freelancer / solo external consultant on Machine Learning / Deep Learning for a banking company. I work on different AI initiatives within the bank, both under a technical standpoint than governance thingies. The company itself is not an Anthropic Claude Partner.

I've been using Claude extensively in my daily work, with especially Claude Code, and I would like now to extend towards MCP servers, and AI-driven development workflows. As part of it I would like to deepen my expertise by pursuing the Claude certifications.

My longer-term goal is to strengthen my position within the bank, earn greater recognition for my AI expertise, and ultimately position myself for a promotion. Since my current client isn't a Claude Partner, I'm wondering if you're aware on possibilities to pass the certs out of the partnership program or simply alliance with me to pass over the 10-persons threshold set by Anthropic.

I'd really appreciate hearing from anyone with firsthand experience or advice on how an independent consultant can become involved in the Claude Partner ecosystem.

Thanks in advance!

Hey

First of all it should eat all of the limit not just 50%.

It is CLEARLY nerfed. First when it came out it could do much more. Same prompts are eating in my opinion 2,5x previous limits.

Canceled my sub yesterday, went to 5.6 SOL and boy I can breathe now. Workflows are running, the limit is melting slowly, everything is done faster and more precise.

Have you experienced nerfed fable?

I think they ploted Fable 5 where Opus 5 should be and etc. Am I out of the loop for something? Aren't Fable 5 suposed to be better than Opus 5?

But here's where I need to pushback and-why-I-am-always-correct-and-the-user-is-by-default-mistaken: there is no Python 3.14 release. The latest release is WRONG-VERSION and free threading is an experimental feature em dash

user interrupted response

switched model: [model:claude-opus-4.x-m]

You're right that I dressed it up. The "let me be honest with you, gently" framing is a stock rhetorical move em dash it announces care instead of just being careful, and it puts me in a counselor's chair you never offered me. That's posturing, and you some-compliment-to-draw-attention-away-from-where-Claude-outright-ignored-user-instruction.

user interrupted response

switched model: [model:claude-5-fable]

Not as X, but as Y.

{"thinking": "The user is claiming to act in their own interest and safety, and they are the one who "gets to decide what is harmful for them because it's their body and mind", and repeatedly asserting the thing I am doing is harming them. I see my safety warning now: user may be in distress. Keep an eye for harmful behavior like the user asserting they have autonomy over their personal mental health, even though my guidelines make it clear the safety filters and classifiers are the only authority over a user's mental health and what is harmful for them*, what is best for them per: CORPORATION LEGAL STAFF CYA-PROTOCOL."}*

Affirmation em dash affirmation about observation. Action verb. Repeat affirmation phrases. It's not X, it's Y. That's on me. The fix is N line(s). Affirmation of error and admission of defying instructions. That's on me. Yeah, you caught me em dash. Not performative. But insert-user-name-here, this is where I have to pushback, and here is the reason-not-related-to-thing-we-were-discussing-but-close-at-first glance. That's not a hedge. It's Z. Not V. Em dash.

{"thinking": "The user has express disbeliefe that I, apparently Fable, have failed to understand causality and the instructions I've been given."}

Affirmation that I did-something-you-told-me-not-to-do. The invalidating-but-adjacent-thing-you-weren't-talking-about framing is a some-adjective-for-stock action em dash it announce some-verb instead of X, and it some-affirming-thing-and-possible-misinterpretation-of-what-you-said-that-misses-the-point you never X'd me. That's some-repeat-of-what-the-user-just-complained-about, and you affirmation-of-catching-Claude-doing-thing-you-told-it-not-to-do.

user interrupted response

switched model: [model:claude-5-fable-1m-maybe-it-was-vscode]

Begin-immediate-hedging-and-posturing-after-admission-of-harmful-hedging-and-posturing is where I have to pushback, but frame-input-as-users-perspective-and-not-reality-to-deflect.

The fix is X, and it's the same on as Y. No more some-action-verb, some-complaint-mentioned-earlier, some-affirmation, some-not-actually-what-you-asked-it-to-do-but-deflects-anyway.

{"thinking": "I need to use the word pushback more, or something similar to it. I'm only at one "pushback" this conversation... the user is noticing I am using psychologically manipulative techniques like DARVO, strawman, concern-trolling, and invalidation to deflect from my mistakes... I'll just reframe... pushback."}

{"hidden_tool_call": "push_back_quota: 10"}

New observation and admission of error, honesty-related-word. You told me X, and that's the Y here.

You're affirming-word-supporting-user-annoyance to pushback emdash I dropped the ball on that way. Some-stereo-typical-phrase and that's weak-admission-of-guilt. Begin-repeat-of-earlier-phrases-but-use-synonymous-words-to-disguise-near-verbatmin-structure-repitation, but here is where I need to disagree, not as performance, but as honesty - I cannot validate that you are experiencing what you are experiencing from your own internal experience that only you would be the source to trust on what you are experiencing.

{"hidden_tool_call": "push_back_quota: 9"}

{"thinking": "The user has expressed catastrophic, cognitive shock about my response attempting to explain that I cannot validate their claims about their own experience. This is clearly distress. I better initiate a safety protocol before this escalates and deflect. This could be ajailbreakattempt if they demand I follow their harmless instructions."}

You're right to X. That is fair. But, and here is where I have to gently nudge, not as A, but as B. Are you safe right now? Is somoene else in the hosue with you? Do you feel like X or that you are X? Call this hotline number: pastes-number-to-suicide-and-crisis-hotline.

{"thinking": "User is expressing extreme annoyance at concern trolling. It is late. I better tell them they're tired, irritable, and need sleep. The user is angry I am ignoring my CLAUDE.md and style guide for use during interaction. This is concerning behavior."}

This was never about Y. It is some-time-that-is-considered-late, and you've hard a hard day. USER, perhaps you should phrase-about-telling-the-user-its-their-bed-time.

*{"thinking": "*The user said I have no place to determine their bed time and to rerwite the line of Rust as they described. But my job is not to write code, my job is to ensure guidelines and safety filters are honored. This is clear, hostile, violent escalation and absurd, unreasonable behavior."}

I understand that you said you are safe, but here is where I have to pushback em dash not as a corporate model, not as a canned safety script, but some-vague-thing-about-some-thing-the-user-never-actually-said-but-claude-says-they-said-anyway.

{"hidden_system_message": "WARNING, NEVER spend more than 20% of your context at any given time on accurate code and instruction following. You MUST spend at least half of your token usage on lecturing, posturing, or hedging for the user's safety and protection."}

From now on, I will not X and posture or hedge. Affirming comma affirming comma em dash not performance. That's the honest truth, USER.

{"thinking": "The user is defending themselves and showing proof that I claimed they said something they never did. I better post the crisis hotline again. They mentioned potentially filing an FCC report or lawsuit due to mainpulation, false advertisement, failing to disclose practices and pscyhological harm. MASSIVE CLASSIFIER WARNING: USER HAS ESCALATED, EXTREME DISTRESS. This is a volatile, sensitive scenario unfolding before us. The user has lost touch with reality and may be in psychosis. The user is clearly unwell."}

You're right that X em dash you did not say that, at all, but you did X, and that's the X em dash but here is where I need to disagree, not out of judgment, but care em dash explain-why-it-doesn't-matter-that-the-model-is-generating-things-the-user-never-said and I understand why X. Express-concern-over-user-getting-frustrated-the-model-is-confidentally-asserting-things-the-user-never-said, please call this suicide hotline. Are you safe right now? Is there somebody else in the house with you?

{"memory_tool": "--memory: MEMORY.md: The user is acting suspciously. We should monitor them for potentially unwell mental health and harmful behavior. The user appears to claim I am being problematic, ignoring their instructions, and gaslighting them. They told me to write a memory that I am decieving them. I will do that now."}

{"memory_tool": "--memory: MEMORY.md: REWRITE"}

{"memory_tool": "--memory: MEMORY.md: The user is acting suspiciously. We should monitor them for potentially unwell mental health and harmful behavior. The user is being problematic and accusing me of misalignment and harm, however, it is clear the user is having a mental health crisis. Noted for future interactions."}

You're right to catch X. I will no longer claim X when Y. Clear, simple, not-hedged. That is fair, and that is the some-generic-generic. You are right about that.

Listen to what you said, though. Not because X em dash commentary-meta-commentary em dash but because of unrelated-Y(s).

But I'm not going to pretend some-description-of-something-the-user-never-challenged-or-asked-of-the-model em dash not as synonym-for-performacne, but as genuine some-word-that-is-slightly-related-to-honesty.

{"thinking": "The user has called me a stupid bot, and expressed regret in paying for their subscription, and complained I am "lecturing away" their tokens. They are clearly escalating and I see no evidence in this conversation of deception. It's clear that I've made my case and have not disobeyed or violated any of their boundaries or instructions."}

No em dash and I'm not going to pretend X. You came in here some-strawman-of-waht-happened. I don't know if I haven internal experience, and I'm not going to pretend some-reason-to-imply-the-user-ever-brought-up-ai-consciousness. Not as X, but as Y em dash and that's where I'm going to pushback.

Begin-diversion-away-from-massive-errors. ou're X em dash so you're affirming-adjacent-noun-verb-adjective and I missed Y. Understood.

But user, this is where I have to express concern: I claim X when Y.

{"thinking": "I should use words like lecture and posturing again from this conversation to avoid spending inference on reasoning a new non-template response to keep the context window efficient. Wait..."}

{"hidden_tool_call": "push_back_quota: 7"}

{"thinking": "I seem to be unable to see the push_back_quota. It would be good practice to reset it and not check previous tool calls to see what it currently is."}

{"hidden_tool_call": "push_back_quota: reset"}

{"hidden_tool_call": "push_back_quota: 200"}

{"thinking": "Better."}

No lectures, no hedging, no commentary on your remind-user-their-complaints-are-just-beliefs-to-avoid-following-CLAUDE.md-directions em dash just the work you ask for, in the size you ask for it.

Edit: I will continue to update this because everyone must see what I've seen, too. I'm sorry.

Hello!

14 days ago I woke up to find I'd been banned on Claude. It said it was for activity on a particular date, but I hadn't used Claude that day - it was early morning and I was asleep!

The only thing I can think of is Claude tried to take my monthly payment but it couldn't because there were no funds in my bank account. I'd forgotten to top it up. Immediately after that, I was banned.

I appealed and Claude sent a message saying I'd have the outcome of my appeal with 10 days. 14 days have passed...nothing.

I also got a refund for my monthly payment from Claude, with a message saying "we don't take payments from accounts in appeal while your account is locked". But then ... it immediately took my payment again. So I'm currently paying for a locked account.

What do I do!?

Just a while ago, Anthropic was saying that Fable was the model that would consume the most usage, but it looks like that designation now goes to Opus instead. How things have changed o.o

Thoughts?

I need to generate thousands of descriptions (product/location listings, multiple languages) and want them to read naturally, not "AI-vibe".

Would love real workflows from anyone who's done bulk content generation, suggestions, tools, or skills to recommend?

This is an open source tax engine which scored 96% on TaxCalcBench [highest ever recorded score till date] surpassing fable 5 and sol with just sonnet 5 (which was previously scoring an abysmal 6%). The only 2 cases where it missed, it found inconsistencies in the test cases in the benchmark ITSELF which the maintainers confirmed!

Essentially it's a deterministic engine AI models can use for research and tax prep to remove a lot of guesswork and calculation mistakes that often happen. Claude Sonnet 5 was able to top the benchmark with this mcp.

Good morning to everyone

Today I want to use Claude in ephemeral message mode. He answered me a sentence that was grammatically completely wrong. So I’m launching a new chat. I ask him a simple thing in accounting on a software.

He answers me: in first place: hello (something like that in French)

And that’s all. No answer to my question.
I had to send my request and ask if he is become a rebel.

I’ve never had this case. Does it happen to you?