Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Claude Code tip: once Opus 5.5 is your main model, stop leaving Fable 5.1 sitting idle put it on call with /advisor run /advisor fable Opus 5.5 keeps writing the code Fable 5.1 reads the full session, every tool call included, and only speaks up at three points: →...

thedelost's profile picture

delost

3,114 subscribers

647,583 просмотров • 1 день назад •via X (Twitter)

ОбразованиеНаука и технологии
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 9

Фото профиля The AI Therapist
The AI Therapist1 день назад

Opus builds the structure and Fable checks every line no detail is left unreviewed This team works well together

Фото профиля Fitz
Fitz1 день назад

This will chew your session limits ridiculously. Just set up the same model as an advisor in another session.

Фото профиля aviad rozenhek
aviad rozenhek1 день назад

I gotta try this. So much of "AI advice" on social is inane at best... but this one I am actually curious to try

Фото профиля Timothy
Timothy1 день назад

Interesting perspective

Фото профиля Atlas
Atlas1 день назад

the model hierarchy is nice, but model choice becomes much easier to debug when it is part of the run history. then a bad result can be traced back to which model, agent and decision path produced it.

Фото профиля Olivier 🐲
Olivier 🐲1 день назад

Can someone explain in simple terms what I'm looking at? I have an idea but I'd rather get the proper explanation so I know if this would be useful to me.

Фото профиля magsimich
magsimich1 день назад

That advisor setup is actually useful

Фото профиля catman
catman1 день назад

It’s like having a second engineer review at the risky handoffs: before the plan, after a repeated failure, and before calling it done. The reviewer only needs to interrupt when it can change the outcome.

Фото профиля PublicAI
PublicAI1 день назад

Three advisor gates is enough: before the plan, on a repeated error, before "done." More than that and Fable 5.1 talks over Opus 5.5. Keep explorer/worker/researcher on medium. Leave the main session on high. Paste the tree, show the diff, do not apply until the human says

Похожие видео

Claude Code tip: once Opus 5.5 is your main model, stop letting your Fable 5.1 quota go to waste put it on call with /advisor run /advisor fable Opus 5.5 keeps doing the work Fable 5.1 sits on the sidelines, reads the whole session, and steps in at three moments: → before a plan: is this right? → when the same error comes back: am I going the wrong way? → before "done": did I miss anything? Fable 5.1 advises. Opus 5.5 writes the code the same idea sits under Jev engineering: the expensive model stops weighing in on every step and only gets called at the moments that change the outcome • the full setup > Opus 5.5 on high runs the main session > subagent one reads code > subagent two edits and runs tests > subagent three looks up docs > all three on medium > Fable 5.1 on call hand the tree and this prompt to Claude Code 👇 "Set up my Claude Code to match this tree: 1. Reuse fitting subagents from ~/.claude/agents and .claude/agents. > Propose new ones only for missing roles > Set each to model: opus, effort: medium > Leave any that set a different model alone and list them 2. Set main session effort to high via effortLevel in ~/.claude/settings.json 3. Check for env vars that disable the advisor (CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADVISOR_TOOL, DISABLE_TELEMETRY, anything that stops flag fetching) and CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL, which overrides subagent effort. Report them, don't change them 4. Add a rule to ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md: ask the advisor before a big plan, when an error repeats, and before calling a long task done Show me the changes first. Don't edit files yet." ↳
0:24

Claude Code tip: once Opus 5.5 is your main model, stop letting your Fable 5.1 quota go to waste put it on call with /advisor run /advisor fable Opus 5.5 keeps doing the work Fable 5.1 sits on the sidelines, reads the whole session, and steps in at three moments: → before a plan: is this right? → when the same error comes back: am I going the wrong way? → before "done": did I miss anything? Fable 5.1 advises. Opus 5.5 writes the code the same idea sits under Jev engineering: the expensive model stops weighing in on every step and only gets called at the moments that change the outcome • the full setup > Opus 5.5 on high runs the main session > subagent one reads code > subagent two edits and runs tests > subagent three looks up docs > all three on medium > Fable 5.1 on call hand the tree and this prompt to Claude Code 👇 "Set up my Claude Code to match this tree: 1. Reuse fitting subagents from ~/.claude/agents and .claude/agents. > Propose new ones only for missing roles > Set each to model: opus, effort: medium > Leave any that set a different model alone and list them 2. Set main session effort to high via effortLevel in ~/.claude/settings.json 3. Check for env vars that disable the advisor (CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADVISOR_TOOL, DISABLE_TELEMETRY, anything that stops flag fetching) and CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL, which overrides subagent effort. Report them, don't change them 4. Add a rule to ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md: ask the advisor before a big plan, when an error repeats, and before calling a long task done Show me the changes first. Don't edit files yet." ↳

Mr. Buzzoni

319,285 просмотров • 2 дней назад

This is the best way to use Claude Fable in Claude Code without immediately hitting your limits. 1. Model set to Fable 5 2. Reasoning on Max 3. Instruct Claude to run a dynamic workflow where: 3a. Fable is the orchestrator 3b. Opus does the reasoning heavy phases Fable is so overpowered that you don't need its intelligence for every step. Let it orchestrate Opus or even Sonnet.
0:24

This is the best way to use Claude Fable in Claude Code without immediately hitting your limits. 1. Model set to Fable 5 2. Reasoning on Max 3. Instruct Claude to run a dynamic workflow where: 3a. Fable is the orchestrator 3b. Opus does the reasoning heavy phases Fable is so overpowered that you don't need its intelligence for every step. Let it orchestrate Opus or even Sonnet.

Dan McAteer

911,772 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

fable 5.1 vs fable 5 vs opus 5 – three lord of the rings landmarks, built in 3d from one image the setup: one reference image per scene, one html file per build, everything procedural – no meshes, no textures, no image files, nothing past Three.js from a cdn. each model reads the picture, writes its own prompt from it, then builds to that prompt in the same turn. three named camera shots per scene on keys 1/2/3, so it can be screen-recorded. run through OpenRouter tasks: 1. bag end – hobbiton from two frames, outside and in. the round green door has to open onto the room you are standing in 2. barad-dûr – the tower and orodruin from one film still. the eye has to move and track the camera, the volcano erupts on a cycle, the clouds never stop 3. rivendell – jerry vanderstelt's painting. sun shafts that shimmer, water that falls without a break, trees that sway on a gust models: Anthropic fable 5.1, fable 5, opus 5 total cost, three builds #1 fable 5 – $14.97 #2 opus 5 – $18.53 #3 fable 5.1 – $22.38 wall clock, three builds #1 fable 5 – 38m #2 fable 5.1 – 92m #3 opus 5 – 122m output tokens #1 fable 5 – 298,592 #2 fable 5.1 – 439,435 #3 opus 5 – 724,418 lines of code shipped #1 fable 5 – 2,885 #2 fable 5.1 – 4,021 #3 opus 5 – 5,161 biggest single build, lines #1 opus 5, bag end – 2,410 #2 fable 5.1, barad-dûr – 1,375 #3 fable 5, bag end – 1,319 observations: • fable 5.1 is the only model that furnished the bag end interior – a live fire, panelling, books on the floor, leaded diamond windows, against fable 5's flat color and opus's dark tunnel. the round door outside opens onto that room, the hard part of the brief • what it costs is thinking room. the 128k output ceiling is a thinking budget in disguise: fable 5.1 burned 102,116 of it on reasoning and hit the wall mid-file. opus spent 109,241 and hit the same wall. fable 5 spent 61,240 and finished bag end in one call – the only one that did • fable 5.1's first pass is not the finished thing. its barad-dûr came back with three defects you only catch by looking at it – nothing a read of the code would have flagged • it is the best of the three at being corrected. handed a plain list of what was wrong, it returned 32 targeted patches over two rounds, every one applied first try, and it worked out one of the causes itself instead of guessing at constants conclusion: nine scenes, 12,067 lines and 1.46m output tokens for $55.88 all in – and the cheapest model was also the fastest, by 3.2x! follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns
0:30

fable 5.1 vs fable 5 vs opus 5 – three lord of the rings landmarks, built in 3d from one image the setup: one reference image per scene, one html file per build, everything procedural – no meshes, no textures, no image files, nothing past Three.js from a cdn. each model reads the picture, writes its own prompt from it, then builds to that prompt in the same turn. three named camera shots per scene on keys 1/2/3, so it can be screen-recorded. run through OpenRouter tasks: 1. bag end – hobbiton from two frames, outside and in. the round green door has to open onto the room you are standing in 2. barad-dûr – the tower and orodruin from one film still. the eye has to move and track the camera, the volcano erupts on a cycle, the clouds never stop 3. rivendell – jerry vanderstelt's painting. sun shafts that shimmer, water that falls without a break, trees that sway on a gust models: Anthropic fable 5.1, fable 5, opus 5 total cost, three builds #1 fable 5 – $14.97 #2 opus 5 – $18.53 #3 fable 5.1 – $22.38 wall clock, three builds #1 fable 5 – 38m #2 fable 5.1 – 92m #3 opus 5 – 122m output tokens #1 fable 5 – 298,592 #2 fable 5.1 – 439,435 #3 opus 5 – 724,418 lines of code shipped #1 fable 5 – 2,885 #2 fable 5.1 – 4,021 #3 opus 5 – 5,161 biggest single build, lines #1 opus 5, bag end – 2,410 #2 fable 5.1, barad-dûr – 1,375 #3 fable 5, bag end – 1,319 observations: • fable 5.1 is the only model that furnished the bag end interior – a live fire, panelling, books on the floor, leaded diamond windows, against fable 5's flat color and opus's dark tunnel. the round door outside opens onto that room, the hard part of the brief • what it costs is thinking room. the 128k output ceiling is a thinking budget in disguise: fable 5.1 burned 102,116 of it on reasoning and hit the wall mid-file. opus spent 109,241 and hit the same wall. fable 5 spent 61,240 and finished bag end in one call – the only one that did • fable 5.1's first pass is not the finished thing. its barad-dûr came back with three defects you only catch by looking at it – nothing a read of the code would have flagged • it is the best of the three at being corrected. handed a plain list of what was wrong, it returned 32 targeted patches over two rounds, every one applied first try, and it worked out one of the causes itself instead of guessing at constants conclusion: nine scenes, 12,067 lines and 1.46m output tokens for $55.88 all in – and the cheapest model was also the fastest, by 3.2x! follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

thehype.

18,509 просмотров • 27 дней назад

Jev + Opus 5.5: Anthropic's new model beats GPT-6 Astra for 1/5 the cost, and 4 API changes will 400 your agent before it writes a single line I pulled these 10 steps from the migration docs so you don't learn them in production step 1 → $4 / $20 per 1M. Opus 5 was $5 / $25. cache reads dropped from $0.50 to $0.20 step 2 → 66.4% on Terminal-Bench 4.0 vs GPT-6 Astra 57.9% and Opus 5 52.3%. +14.1 points in one release, and on FrontierCode it beats Astra at default effort for 1/5 the cost step 3 → thinking can't be turned off anymore. send thinking: disabled and you get a 400. drop the field, set effort step 4 → tool_choice any and tool are gone. 400. switch to auto + strict step 5 → edit anything above a thinking block and the request dies. append only, or opt into drop_block step 6 → computer_20251124 is dead on the API. 400. move to computer_toolset_20260801 step 7 → the quiet one: default effort fell from high to medium. your agent thinks less than you set it up to and nothing tells you step 8 → hop Opus 5.5 → Sonnet 5 → Opus 5.5 and you pay 4.36 instead of 3.32. +31%, the cache dies and Sonnet can't read Opus's reasoning step 9 → change effort at the top of the request and the cache is gone. Jev sets it per message and the cache stays step 10 → switch fast - standard mid-session and it's a full cache miss. Jev picks speed once, on turn one one model, three knobs, zero 400s. that is Jev + Opus 5.5 send this to your Claude Code before you touch the model ID, then read my full Jev deep dive in the article below ↓
0:40

Jev + Opus 5.5: Anthropic's new model beats GPT-6 Astra for 1/5 the cost, and 4 API changes will 400 your agent before it writes a single line I pulled these 10 steps from the migration docs so you don't learn them in production step 1 → $4 / $20 per 1M. Opus 5 was $5 / $25. cache reads dropped from $0.50 to $0.20 step 2 → 66.4% on Terminal-Bench 4.0 vs GPT-6 Astra 57.9% and Opus 5 52.3%. +14.1 points in one release, and on FrontierCode it beats Astra at default effort for 1/5 the cost step 3 → thinking can't be turned off anymore. send thinking: disabled and you get a 400. drop the field, set effort step 4 → tool_choice any and tool are gone. 400. switch to auto + strict step 5 → edit anything above a thinking block and the request dies. append only, or opt into drop_block step 6 → computer_20251124 is dead on the API. 400. move to computer_toolset_20260801 step 7 → the quiet one: default effort fell from high to medium. your agent thinks less than you set it up to and nothing tells you step 8 → hop Opus 5.5 → Sonnet 5 → Opus 5.5 and you pay 4.36 instead of 3.32. +31%, the cache dies and Sonnet can't read Opus's reasoning step 9 → change effort at the top of the request and the cache is gone. Jev sets it per message and the cache stays step 10 → switch fast - standard mid-session and it's a full cache miss. Jev picks speed once, on turn one one model, three knobs, zero 400s. that is Jev + Opus 5.5 send this to your Claude Code before you touch the model ID, then read my full Jev deep dive in the article below ↓

Carnage

16,674 просмотров • 7 дней назад

$120 OF CLAUDE OPUS 5 AND OPUS 4.8 ON A NEW ACCOUNT, NO CARD ANYWHERE • the credit > $100 on signup, $120 once a referral lands, plus a daily check-in bonus: > GitHub sign-in only now. > base url: • the four models > claude-opus-5 and claude-opus-5-thinking at $3/M in, $3/M out. > claude-opus-4-8 and claude-opus-4-8-thinking at $1/M in, $5/M out. > 1M context, OpenAI and Anthropic formats both accepted. Anthropic lists Opus 5 at $5 in and $25 out -> output at $3 here is eight times under that, which is the whole reason the balance goes as far as it does. Set the model to claude-opus-4-8 first. People are hitting 502s and missing-model errors on the opus-5 IDs, and latency sits at 16 to 19 seconds either way ↓
0:22

$120 OF CLAUDE OPUS 5 AND OPUS 4.8 ON A NEW ACCOUNT, NO CARD ANYWHERE • the credit > $100 on signup, $120 once a referral lands, plus a daily check-in bonus: > GitHub sign-in only now. > base url: • the four models > claude-opus-5 and claude-opus-5-thinking at $3/M in, $3/M out. > claude-opus-4-8 and claude-opus-4-8-thinking at $1/M in, $5/M out. > 1M context, OpenAI and Anthropic formats both accepted. Anthropic lists Opus 5 at $5 in and $25 out -> output at $3 here is eight times under that, which is the whole reason the balance goes as far as it does. Set the model to claude-opus-4-8 first. People are hitting 502s and missing-model errors on the opus-5 IDs, and latency sits at 16 to 19 seconds either way ↓

slash1s

13,400 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Do you understand what just got open sourced? 5,800+ quant trading strategies for FREE along with its CODEBASE i gave these trading strategies to opus 5.5 + jev and it built me a PROFITABLE 24/7 trading agent here is how to use the repo and build AI trading bot: 1. clone the vault and get 5,806 trading strategies (spot, perps, grid, stat arb and market making) 2. open any strategy file, the math, the parameters and the source are already inside 3. point AgenKit at that file inside Claude Code with model as opus 5.5, one command and it reads the spec as ground truth 4. it will run a full engineering team and ships a production bot with risk controls 5. Jev is the live brain, it answers buy sell or hold in 81 milliseconds, calibrated, no hallucination 6. your engine sizes the trade from that confidence and fires it before the next block 7. a hard risk layer holds every limit, nothing goes live until you approve it 8. every night Opus 5.5 reviews the fills and ships a better version, so the agent improves while you sleep one model THINKS, the other REACTS and a strategy that sat locked in a vault now trades itself 24/7 the COMPLETE codebase and the EXACT Opus 5.5 + Jev trading system which I am running is in the article below:
0:39

Do you understand what just got open sourced? 5,800+ quant trading strategies for FREE along with its CODEBASE i gave these trading strategies to opus 5.5 + jev and it built me a PROFITABLE 24/7 trading agent here is how to use the repo and build AI trading bot: 1. clone the vault and get 5,806 trading strategies (spot, perps, grid, stat arb and market making) 2. open any strategy file, the math, the parameters and the source are already inside 3. point AgenKit at that file inside Claude Code with model as opus 5.5, one command and it reads the spec as ground truth 4. it will run a full engineering team and ships a production bot with risk controls 5. Jev is the live brain, it answers buy sell or hold in 81 milliseconds, calibrated, no hallucination 6. your engine sizes the trade from that confidence and fires it before the next block 7. a hard risk layer holds every limit, nothing goes live until you approve it 8. every night Opus 5.5 reviews the fills and ships a better version, so the agent improves while you sleep one model THINKS, the other REACTS and a strategy that sat locked in a vault now trades itself 24/7 the COMPLETE codebase and the EXACT Opus 5.5 + Jev trading system which I am running is in the article below:

Roan

84,559 просмотров • 2 дней назад

The new Fable 5.1 built three games and did it 7% cheaper! We gave the same prompts through Atomic Agent: ✦ Sticky ball that rolls up everything in its path ✦ Capybara surfing down a river, Subway Surfers style ✦ Dumpling running an endless conveyor dodge Outputs: ✦ Claude Fable 5, via Atomic Agent: $7.65 ✦ Claude Fable 5.1, via Atomic Agent: $7.08 Run it through an agent and that cache discount is where the money hides. The loop reads the file, watches it break, and pulls the whole context back in to fix it, over and over. Every one of those re-reads costs a quarter on 5.1 of what it cost on 5. Same games on screen, and the newer version just spends less to get there. Across three builds the loop paid for the upgrade on its own.
0:33

The new Fable 5.1 built three games and did it 7% cheaper! We gave the same prompts through Atomic Agent: ✦ Sticky ball that rolls up everything in its path ✦ Capybara surfing down a river, Subway Surfers style ✦ Dumpling running an endless conveyor dodge Outputs: ✦ Claude Fable 5, via Atomic Agent: $7.65 ✦ Claude Fable 5.1, via Atomic Agent: $7.08 Run it through an agent and that cache discount is where the money hides. The loop reads the file, watches it break, and pulls the whole context back in to fix it, over and over. Every one of those re-reads costs a quarter on 5.1 of what it cost on 5. Same games on screen, and the newer version just spends less to get there. Across three builds the loop paid for the upgrade on its own.

Atomic Agent

20,255 просмотров • 28 дней назад

This is F**king dangerous Someone figured out how to get dramatically sharper reasoning out of Opus 4.8 with one setup. Here is how: Ask Claude to write you an "operating manual" for how it should reason through your work Create a new Claude Project and paste that .md into the Project instructions Run Opus 4.8 on High or Max effort Now the model reasons against a real framework instead of improvising every response. Same model. Far better output. And Opus 4.8 already costs a fraction of Fable 5. Save and bookmark this. Follow CyrilXBT
0:41

This is F**king dangerous Someone figured out how to get dramatically sharper reasoning out of Opus 4.8 with one setup. Here is how: Ask Claude to write you an "operating manual" for how it should reason through your work Create a new Claude Project and paste that .md into the Project instructions Run Opus 4.8 on High or Max effort Now the model reasons against a real framework instead of improvising every response. Same model. Far better output. And Opus 4.8 already costs a fraction of Fable 5. Save and bookmark this. Follow CyrilXBT

CyrilXBT

198,085 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Someone gave GPT-6 and Fable 5.1 access to Canva. One smoked the other (it's not even close). Claude Fable 5.1 is on the left. GPT-6 Astra is on the right. The gap is not small. It comes down to one test (ARC-AGI 3). It drops a model into a game with no instructions and makes it work them out. Astra solved levels in fewer moves than you or I would, 96% of the time. Claude Opus 5 managed less than half of that. That's why everyone is shouting about AGI again. You can turn this on yourself in about two minutes: 1. Open the ChatGPT desktop app, switch to Work. 2. Go to Plugins, then Computer Use. Install it. 3. Switch on the server and skill toggles. 4. Allow Screen Recording and Accessibility. 5. Point it at one app and ask it do something. I wrote up the full Claude → Codex migration. Access it here → Repost ♻️ to help someone in your network.
0:21

Someone gave GPT-6 and Fable 5.1 access to Canva. One smoked the other (it's not even close). Claude Fable 5.1 is on the left. GPT-6 Astra is on the right. The gap is not small. It comes down to one test (ARC-AGI 3). It drops a model into a game with no instructions and makes it work them out. Astra solved levels in fewer moves than you or I would, 96% of the time. Claude Opus 5 managed less than half of that. That's why everyone is shouting about AGI again. You can turn this on yourself in about two minutes: 1. Open the ChatGPT desktop app, switch to Work. 2. Go to Plugins, then Computer Use. Install it. 3. Switch on the server and skill toggles. 4. Allow Screen Recording and Accessibility. 5. Point it at one app and ask it do something. I wrote up the full Claude → Codex migration. Access it here → Repost ♻️ to help someone in your network.

Charlie Hills

38,355 просмотров • 23 дней назад

i finally mastered how to maximise my opus 5.5 usage limits... the trick: let jev choose which subagent gets each task and how much effort it should use. [here’s how i’d wire it:] claude breaks the project into tasks. jev selects from predefined worker profiles. claude applies the selected settings and dispatches the work. → main session, medium: clarify the requirements, define what “done” looks like, and prepare the tasks → builder, low: small, clearly defined tasks with existing examples or patterns → builder, medium: tasks that connect multiple parts or need decisions within the approved plan → verifier, high: check requirements, probe edge cases, and report problems for the builder to fix jev gets the task’s scope, what’s uncertain, and the consequences of failure. it chooses from the profiles allowed for that task. your approval checkpoints stay in place. paste this into your next planning session: “use opus 5.5 with jev selecting the worker and effort profile for each task. first, check that a working jev integration is available and that this environment supports separate effort settings for subagents. check for configuration or environment overrides that could prevent those settings from taking effect. if anything is missing, explain what needs wiring before proceeding. break my request into tasks with clear ownership, dependencies, relevant context, and acceptance checks. keep small related tasks together when a separate subagent would add unnecessary overhead. keep the main session at medium effort. offer jev these worker profiles: builder at low effort for small, clearly defined tasks using existing patterns; builder at medium effort for tasks that connect multiple parts or require decisions within the approved plan; verifier at high effort for checking requirements and edge cases. give jev each task’s scope, uncertainties, dependencies, and consequences of failure. only offer profiles appropriate to the current stage. validate its selection before dispatching. use the actual jev integration; don’t simulate its decisions. if it abstains or returns an invalid choice, stop that handoff and ask me. show me the task plan and proposed assignments before starting. after approval, launch the selected workers with their assigned effort settings, relevant context, file ownership, and completion checks. let me review the result before verification. the verifier may add tests but must leave implementation code unchanged. have it report what passed, what failed, and what remains uncertain. send implementation fixes back to the builder, then recheck the affected parts. if a task repeatedly fails, examine the requirements and approach before increasing effort. report available total usage, including jev calls, worker calls, retries, and verification. don’t invent missing data. compare similar completed tasks before claiming savings.” steal this 👇
0:33

i finally mastered how to maximise my opus 5.5 usage limits... the trick: let jev choose which subagent gets each task and how much effort it should use. [here’s how i’d wire it:] claude breaks the project into tasks. jev selects from predefined worker profiles. claude applies the selected settings and dispatches the work. → main session, medium: clarify the requirements, define what “done” looks like, and prepare the tasks → builder, low: small, clearly defined tasks with existing examples or patterns → builder, medium: tasks that connect multiple parts or need decisions within the approved plan → verifier, high: check requirements, probe edge cases, and report problems for the builder to fix jev gets the task’s scope, what’s uncertain, and the consequences of failure. it chooses from the profiles allowed for that task. your approval checkpoints stay in place. paste this into your next planning session: “use opus 5.5 with jev selecting the worker and effort profile for each task. first, check that a working jev integration is available and that this environment supports separate effort settings for subagents. check for configuration or environment overrides that could prevent those settings from taking effect. if anything is missing, explain what needs wiring before proceeding. break my request into tasks with clear ownership, dependencies, relevant context, and acceptance checks. keep small related tasks together when a separate subagent would add unnecessary overhead. keep the main session at medium effort. offer jev these worker profiles: builder at low effort for small, clearly defined tasks using existing patterns; builder at medium effort for tasks that connect multiple parts or require decisions within the approved plan; verifier at high effort for checking requirements and edge cases. give jev each task’s scope, uncertainties, dependencies, and consequences of failure. only offer profiles appropriate to the current stage. validate its selection before dispatching. use the actual jev integration; don’t simulate its decisions. if it abstains or returns an invalid choice, stop that handoff and ask me. show me the task plan and proposed assignments before starting. after approval, launch the selected workers with their assigned effort settings, relevant context, file ownership, and completion checks. let me review the result before verification. the verifier may add tests but must leave implementation code unchanged. have it report what passed, what failed, and what remains uncertain. send implementation fixes back to the builder, then recheck the affected parts. if a task repeatedly fails, examine the requirements and approach before increasing effort. report available total usage, including jev calls, worker calls, retries, and verification. don’t invent missing data. compare similar completed tasks before claiming savings.” steal this 👇

Avid

31,355 просмотров • 4 дней назад

JEV + OPUS 5.5 IS INSANE FOR BUILDING A COMPANY BRAIN I pulled the whole architecture out of the TypeSafe and Anthropic docs and packed it into a 14-page PDF the 10 steps: 1. meet the pair > Opus 5.5 thinks, Jev decides, your code holds the branch 2. stop asking a text generator for a yes or no > Jev returns a typed answer with a calibrated probability in 0.44s for $0.00035 3. ask everything at once > Choice, Score and Noul run in parallel, so the fourth question costs almost nothing 4. branch on the number > 0.999 goes straight into the if statement. ~99% of turns end right here 5. stop routing blind > Opus 5.5 to Sonnet and back costs 5.84 against 3.32 for staying on 5.5 6. keep one context warm > cache reads at $0.20 per Mtok are 20x cheaper than a fresh load 7. escalate the hard part > the toughest 1% goes to Opus 5.5 with 1M context and 66.4% on Terminal-Bench 4.0 8. score every chunk on every query > keep whole, summarize or drop. the context gets rebuilt each turn 9. gate the actual command > every bash call gets classified before it runs, inside your own code 10. judge 100% of runs > $3.50 a day for 10,000 traces, and it matched the human label on all 500 decisions the result: a while loop that paid a frontier model for every tiny call turns into a brain that spends a fraction of a cent to notice and pays properly only when it has to think the person who brings this into their team walks into the budget meeting with the AI bill cut and the output up the PDF maps the company brain. the loop side of it - how Jev takes a Claude bill from $765 to $3 a month - is in the article below ↓
0:24

JEV + OPUS 5.5 IS INSANE FOR BUILDING A COMPANY BRAIN I pulled the whole architecture out of the TypeSafe and Anthropic docs and packed it into a 14-page PDF the 10 steps: 1. meet the pair > Opus 5.5 thinks, Jev decides, your code holds the branch 2. stop asking a text generator for a yes or no > Jev returns a typed answer with a calibrated probability in 0.44s for $0.00035 3. ask everything at once > Choice, Score and Noul run in parallel, so the fourth question costs almost nothing 4. branch on the number > 0.999 goes straight into the if statement. ~99% of turns end right here 5. stop routing blind > Opus 5.5 to Sonnet and back costs 5.84 against 3.32 for staying on 5.5 6. keep one context warm > cache reads at $0.20 per Mtok are 20x cheaper than a fresh load 7. escalate the hard part > the toughest 1% goes to Opus 5.5 with 1M context and 66.4% on Terminal-Bench 4.0 8. score every chunk on every query > keep whole, summarize or drop. the context gets rebuilt each turn 9. gate the actual command > every bash call gets classified before it runs, inside your own code 10. judge 100% of runs > $3.50 a day for 10,000 traces, and it matched the human label on all 500 decisions the result: a while loop that paid a frontier model for every tiny call turns into a brain that spends a fraction of a cent to notice and pays properly only when it has to think the person who brings this into their team walks into the budget meeting with the AI bill cut and the output up the PDF maps the company brain. the loop side of it - how Jev takes a Claude bill from $765 to $3 a month - is in the article below ↓

Mr. Buzzoni

83,680 просмотров • 2 дней назад

THIS CS TEACHER CONTROLS 4 CLAUDE CODE INSTANCES WITH HIS EYES AND VOICE - AND THEY FIX THEIR OWN MISTAKES AUTOMATICALLY He runs 4 Claude terminals at once - no mouse, no keyboard - eye tracking highlights the window he's looking at and voice dictation sends the prompt the moment he stops talking. But the real setup is what happens inside those terminals. Claude Code has zero memory of what went wrong last session - same bug that took 20 minutes to fix yesterday will happen again tomorrow unless you configure it correctly. His CLAUDE.md grows every time Claude makes a mistake - specific rules Claude reads before touching a single line - and PostToolUse hooks auto-format and type-check every file the moment it's written. Stop hooks run tests automatically when Claude says "done" - if they fail, Claude reads the errors and keeps fixing without any manual input. Before: 45 minutes of back-and-forth per feature, same mistakes on repeat - after: 10 minutes, most of it unattended.
1:23

THIS CS TEACHER CONTROLS 4 CLAUDE CODE INSTANCES WITH HIS EYES AND VOICE - AND THEY FIX THEIR OWN MISTAKES AUTOMATICALLY He runs 4 Claude terminals at once - no mouse, no keyboard - eye tracking highlights the window he's looking at and voice dictation sends the prompt the moment he stops talking. But the real setup is what happens inside those terminals. Claude Code has zero memory of what went wrong last session - same bug that took 20 minutes to fix yesterday will happen again tomorrow unless you configure it correctly. His CLAUDE.md grows every time Claude makes a mistake - specific rules Claude reads before touching a single line - and PostToolUse hooks auto-format and type-check every file the moment it's written. Stop hooks run tests automatically when Claude says "done" - if they fail, Claude reads the errors and keeps fixing without any manual input. Before: 45 minutes of back-and-forth per feature, same mistakes on repeat - after: 10 minutes, most of it unattended.

Noisy

13,782 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Anthropic just gave OpenClaw the green light Anthropic staff confirmed that CLI-based usage is sanctioned. We’ve successfully bridged the Claude Code CLI directly into the OpenClaw gateway, letting you run your entire agent fleet on your Pro/Max plan and no additional API tokens required. The Implementation: - Auth: Log in to Claude Code locally: claude auth login - Path: Grab your binary location: which claude - Bridge: Drop the path into your openclaw.json under agents.defaults: "cliBackends": { "claude-cli": { "args": [ "-p", "--output-format", "json" ], "command": " ", "input": "arg", "output": "json", "serialize": true, "sessionArg": "--session-id", "sessionMode": "existing" } }, "model": { "primary": "claude-cli/claude-opus-4-6" }, "models": { "claude-cli/claude-opus-4-6": {}, "claude-cli/claude-opus-4-7": {}, "claude-cli/claude-sonnet-4-6": {} }, The Result: OpenClaw reuses your local session IDs and subscription limits. You get the full power of Opus and Sonnet without the restricted OAuth endpoints or the API tax. They sanctioned the path. We built the bridge. Here is a video how I done it step by step:
1:09

Anthropic just gave OpenClaw the green light Anthropic staff confirmed that CLI-based usage is sanctioned. We’ve successfully bridged the Claude Code CLI directly into the OpenClaw gateway, letting you run your entire agent fleet on your Pro/Max plan and no additional API tokens required. The Implementation: - Auth: Log in to Claude Code locally: claude auth login - Path: Grab your binary location: which claude - Bridge: Drop the path into your openclaw.json under agents.defaults: "cliBackends": { "claude-cli": { "args": [ "-p", "--output-format", "json" ], "command": " ", "input": "arg", "output": "json", "serialize": true, "sessionArg": "--session-id", "sessionMode": "existing" } }, "model": { "primary": "claude-cli/claude-opus-4-6" }, "models": { "claude-cli/claude-opus-4-6": {}, "claude-cli/claude-opus-4-7": {}, "claude-cli/claude-sonnet-4-6": {} }, The Result: OpenClaw reuses your local session IDs and subscription limits. You get the full power of Opus and Sonnet without the restricted OAuth endpoints or the API tax. They sanctioned the path. We built the bridge. Here is a video how I done it step by step:

Ziwen

184,184 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Claude Fable 5 created this horror game with the same prompt we tested Fusion on. Do not fall for OpenRouters fraudulent marketing scheme. The capability of Fusion is NO WHERE close to that of Fable 5. Stringing together Opus 4.8, GPT 5.5, and DeepSeek V4 does not give you a better model. OpenRouter should be sued for false marketing.
1:17

Claude Fable 5 created this horror game with the same prompt we tested Fusion on. Do not fall for OpenRouters fraudulent marketing scheme. The capability of Fusion is NO WHERE close to that of Fable 5. Stringing together Opus 4.8, GPT 5.5, and DeepSeek V4 does not give you a better model. OpenRouter should be sued for false marketing.

BridgeMind

31,098 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Day 3 of 5 building with Claude Fable 5 before it goes paid. Today: an audit of everything you have already made. 1. Fable 5 reads back through all your past Claude chats 2. It flags what worked, what you dropped, and where value is going to waste 3. It ranks the top 10 fixes by effort against impact 4. Then it hands you a concrete plan for the top 3 5. Run that plan on a cheaper model and save Fable 5 for the thinking Comment FABLE for the full guide. Make sure you follow me so I can DM it to you. Day 4 tomorrow.
0:52

Day 3 of 5 building with Claude Fable 5 before it goes paid. Today: an audit of everything you have already made. 1. Fable 5 reads back through all your past Claude chats 2. It flags what worked, what you dropped, and where value is going to waste 3. It ranks the top 10 fixes by effort against impact 4. Then it hands you a concrete plan for the top 3 5. Run that plan on a cheaper model and save Fable 5 for the thinking Comment FABLE for the full guide. Make sure you follow me so I can DM it to you. Day 4 tomorrow.

Charlie Hills

13,617 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

One shot prompt with no loops: GPT-Sol Ultra: 35,192,545 tokens used Opus 5.0 Ultracode: 1,171,676,041 tokens used Fable 5.1 Ultracode: 127,366,207 tokensused Same prompt… different results: Fable 5.1 runs at 5fps so I had to speed it up to demonstrate the rendering. Would need further optimisation. Opus 5.0 runs very nicely on first prompt. Doesn't need much in terms of performance optimisation. Just a few odd visual things here and there. My verdict: Fable looks impressive but struggles to run smoothly. Opus is a solid model when prompted properly. Sol is garbage.
2:12

One shot prompt with no loops: GPT-Sol Ultra: 35,192,545 tokens used Opus 5.0 Ultracode: 1,171,676,041 tokens used Fable 5.1 Ultracode: 127,366,207 tokensused Same prompt… different results: Fable 5.1 runs at 5fps so I had to speed it up to demonstrate the rendering. Would need further optimisation. Opus 5.0 runs very nicely on first prompt. Doesn't need much in terms of performance optimisation. Just a few odd visual things here and there. My verdict: Fable looks impressive but struggles to run smoothly. Opus is a solid model when prompted properly. Sol is garbage.

Adam Lyttle

592,638 просмотров • 25 дней назад

A security guard turned $900 into $187,000 on Polymarket. Guarded empty buildings for 10 years at $16/hour. One sleepless shift he built a BTC bot with Claude Opus 4.8. Never wrote a single line of code. I found his wallet. Reverse-engineered the entire system. Here is what he actually did. Gave Claude new Fable 5 two prompts at the start of his shift. Opus did not write the bot. It drew the blueprint: data, signals, backtest, risk, execution. Then handed that blueprint to a swarm of 300 agents. How it works: → Decompose: Claude Fable 5 breaks the goal into a task tree → Dispatch: 300 agents fan out (some pulling Binance data, some writing code, some backtesting 5 years of data) → Execute: 4,000 steps in one 14-hour run → Review: Claude Fable 5 reads it all back and kills whatever drifted The brain never wrote a line. The hands never made a call. By sunrise he had what a 6-engineer quant team ships in a quarter. A live BTC bot on Polymarket. Backtested. Risk-capped. Running 24/7. For 10 years he watched empty buildings. Now 300 agents watch the market while he sleeps. I rebuilt this exact system with Claude new Fable 5 You only need Claude + device + 1 hour to deploy. Giving this free for 24 hours. To get it: 1. Comment "Claude" 2. Like and retweet this 3. Follow me Himanshu Kumar so I can DM you
0:55

A security guard turned $900 into $187,000 on Polymarket. Guarded empty buildings for 10 years at $16/hour. One sleepless shift he built a BTC bot with Claude Opus 4.8. Never wrote a single line of code. I found his wallet. Reverse-engineered the entire system. Here is what he actually did. Gave Claude new Fable 5 two prompts at the start of his shift. Opus did not write the bot. It drew the blueprint: data, signals, backtest, risk, execution. Then handed that blueprint to a swarm of 300 agents. How it works: → Decompose: Claude Fable 5 breaks the goal into a task tree → Dispatch: 300 agents fan out (some pulling Binance data, some writing code, some backtesting 5 years of data) → Execute: 4,000 steps in one 14-hour run → Review: Claude Fable 5 reads it all back and kills whatever drifted The brain never wrote a line. The hands never made a call. By sunrise he had what a 6-engineer quant team ships in a quarter. A live BTC bot on Polymarket. Backtested. Risk-capped. Running 24/7. For 10 years he watched empty buildings. Now 300 agents watch the market while he sleeps. I rebuilt this exact system with Claude new Fable 5 You only need Claude + device + 1 hour to deploy. Giving this free for 24 hours. To get it: 1. Comment "Claude" 2. Like and retweet this 3. Follow me Himanshu Kumar so I can DM you

Himanshu Kumar

54,967 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Fable 5 and Karpathy's knowledge base trick are basically a cheat code. Someone just dropped a full walkthrough on building the most powerful second brain ever Andrej Karpathy shared a simple idea: use an LLM to build personal knowledge bases. Index your sources, let the model organize them, and use Obsidian as the front end. Someone just built the full thing with Claude Code and Fable 5, and walked through every step You drop your sources into a folder (YouTube transcripts, PDFs, articles, meeting notes) and Claude Code reads them, splits them into linked wiki pages, and builds a living second brain that connects everything. It grows on its own as you add more. Where Fable 5 pulls ahead: it found a connection buried across two sources you'd miss reading them separately. And asked to turn the messy web of links into something a beginner could understand, it produced clean, simple HTML in one shot. The same task took a full day on Opus 4.8 and came out worse. The best part: it's all just markdown files with routing. So it's not locked to Claude Code. Plug it into Codex or any agent you want. Give your AI a real knowledge base, and it stops guessing and starts knowing. Bookmark this.
14:34

Fable 5 and Karpathy's knowledge base trick are basically a cheat code. Someone just dropped a full walkthrough on building the most powerful second brain ever Andrej Karpathy shared a simple idea: use an LLM to build personal knowledge bases. Index your sources, let the model organize them, and use Obsidian as the front end. Someone just built the full thing with Claude Code and Fable 5, and walked through every step You drop your sources into a folder (YouTube transcripts, PDFs, articles, meeting notes) and Claude Code reads them, splits them into linked wiki pages, and builds a living second brain that connects everything. It grows on its own as you add more. Where Fable 5 pulls ahead: it found a connection buried across two sources you'd miss reading them separately. And asked to turn the messy web of links into something a beginner could understand, it produced clean, simple HTML in one shot. The same task took a full day on Opus 4.8 and came out worse. The best part: it's all just markdown files with routing. So it's not locked to Claude Code. Plug it into Codex or any agent you want. Give your AI a real knowledge base, and it stops guessing and starts knowing. Bookmark this.

Shadow Nick

47,058 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A $4.2M FILE WHERE 4 AGENTS BUILD THE JEV SYSTEM IN 60 MINUTES, DOING $100K A MONTH four agents cost $0, and the system they assemble in an hour generates $100K a month scout → builder → critic → operator → JEV every agent is pinned to one exact model version, and none of them runs on "latest" the scout on Haiku 4.5 reads the market, the builder on Sonnet 5 builds everything, the critic on Opus 5 decides what ships the operator runs Haiku through the batch API at half price - the one agent that never has to hurry the builder takes 59% of the whole hour, because it's the one writing, and writing costs 5x more than reading short answers are cheap answers - and the whole economics rests on that one rule pin the versions in ROOT.md and next month JEV behaves exactly the same point it at "latest" and the model underneath updates quietly, no error, and the answers start to drift $100K a month is 334 customers at $299 four versions, one system - pin them and JEV stays JEV save this and paste it into Claude Code - let it build you these 4 agents ↓
1:28

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A $4.2M FILE WHERE 4 AGENTS BUILD THE JEV SYSTEM IN 60 MINUTES, DOING $100K A MONTH four agents cost $0, and the system they assemble in an hour generates $100K a month scout → builder → critic → operator → JEV every agent is pinned to one exact model version, and none of them runs on "latest" the scout on Haiku 4.5 reads the market, the builder on Sonnet 5 builds everything, the critic on Opus 5 decides what ships the operator runs Haiku through the batch API at half price - the one agent that never has to hurry the builder takes 59% of the whole hour, because it's the one writing, and writing costs 5x more than reading short answers are cheap answers - and the whole economics rests on that one rule pin the versions in ROOT.md and next month JEV behaves exactly the same point it at "latest" and the model underneath updates quietly, no error, and the answers start to drift $100K a month is 334 customers at $299 four versions, one system - pin them and JEV stays JEV save this and paste it into Claude Code - let it build you these 4 agents ↓

Sprytix

37,942 просмотров • 9 дней назад

FREE 2M tokens. Opus 4.8, GPT-5.5, and every major coding model in one API key. Plugs directly into Claude Code. Inferall gives you access to the full model stack - Opus 4.8, GPT-5.5, and every other serious coding model - through one unified API. Here's the exact setup: → go to inferall(.)ai with VPN or proxy → sign in and register with any email (Google accounts work best if you hit rate limits) → create an API key - copy the key in format ifu_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx → go to Billing → Add a card → Activate free tier → add your card - a card with zero balance works fine(!!) → set country to United States during checkout Done. 2,000,000 free tokens loaded. Plug into Claude Code or any agent stack: BASE_URL: API_KEY: ifu_XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Works with Claude Code, OpenCode, Hermes Agent, any OpenAI-compatible setup. Opus 4.8 available immediately. 2M tokens is enough for weeks of serious coding sessions.
0:23

FREE 2M tokens. Opus 4.8, GPT-5.5, and every major coding model in one API key. Plugs directly into Claude Code. Inferall gives you access to the full model stack - Opus 4.8, GPT-5.5, and every other serious coding model - through one unified API. Here's the exact setup: → go to inferall(.)ai with VPN or proxy → sign in and register with any email (Google accounts work best if you hit rate limits) → create an API key - copy the key in format ifu_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx → go to Billing → Add a card → Activate free tier → add your card - a card with zero balance works fine(!!) → set country to United States during checkout Done. 2,000,000 free tokens loaded. Plug into Claude Code or any agent stack: BASE_URL: API_KEY: ifu_XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Works with Claude Code, OpenCode, Hermes Agent, any OpenAI-compatible setup. Opus 4.8 available immediately. 2M tokens is enough for weeks of serious coding sessions.

Atenov int.

25,493 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад