正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Claude Coders: run this Opus 5.5 command NOW to launch 30 AI agents '/batch' opus 5.5 turns one big job into 30 AI agents: → breaks the work into independent AI agents → shows you the plan first → runs them all at the same time save and run... show more

Khairallah AL-Awady

78,792 subscribers

18,636 次观看 • 1 天前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

16 条评论

Avid 的头像

Avid1 天前

genuinely learned something new

Charlie Hills 的头像

Charlie Hills1 天前

this is actually pretty damn cool

Hamza Khalid 的头像

Hamza Khalid1 天前

plan first mann the 30-agent is parallel to the dream workflow.

Web3Arabs 的头像

Web3Arabs1 天前

😳😳

starmex 的头像

starmex23 小时前

30 agents from one command is actually insane batching the work like this feels way more useful than just throwing everything at one model

Abdul Shakoor 的头像

Abdul Shakoor1 天前

Thanks for sharing ,habibi

Asmir 的头像

Asmir22 小时前

imagine 30 agents all finish and you still have to merge 30 sets of changes

Luba Inz 的头像

Luba Inz23 小时前

Running 30 agents at once was easy. Deciding which ones could act without asking me took longer than the setup.

helicerat 的头像

helicerat20 小时前

one command instead of wiring the fan out yourself just removes the whole setup step

Yarchi 的头像

Yarchi23 小时前

nice command, i didn't know about it

MAX 的头像

MAX21 小时前

Bookmarked Thanks for sharing legend

Agent Kitchen 的头像

Agent Kitchen21 小时前

The part worth slowing down on is 'shows you the plan first.' At 30 parallel agents, checking that plan before launch matters more than usual, since a small mistake in the breakdown gets multiplied across every one of them.

Videl 的头像

Videl1 天前

This is the first time I have seen this Kai

Sergey | AI Agent Tests 的头像

Sergey | AI Agent Tests23 小时前

worth checking the bill before you run 30 of them. one haiku agent on one real github bug averaged about $2 at api prices for me today. 30 in parallel adds up fast

Vipul Kumar Kewat 的头像

Vipul Kumar Kewat22 小时前

30 agents from one command is a serious productivity jump.

Saman Ahmed 的头像

Saman Ahmed23 小时前

yesss parallel work finally

相关视频

one Opus 5.5 prompt, and now I run around a virtual office managing agents to work on github issues and merge conflicts

one Opus 5.5 prompt, and now I run around a virtual office managing agents to work on github issues and merge conflicts

WebDevCody

488,726 次观看 • 13 天前

Introducing Claude Opus 5.5, the first model in our new Claude 5.5 family. It performs at the level of Claude Fable 5.1 for most tasks, and costs 40% less to run than Opus 5.

Introducing Claude Opus 5.5, the first model in our new Claude 5.5 family. It performs at the level of Claude Fable 5.1 for most tasks, and costs 40% less to run than Opus 5.

Claude

28,102,289 次观看 • 16 天前

This workflow will save you thousands with Claude. Run Opus 5.5, Sonnet 5.5, Haiku 5.5, and Fable 5.1 together, and stop spending Opus tokens on work that doesn't need Opus. The entire idea in one line: Opus plans, Sonnet edits, Haiku reads, Fable reviews at decision points. Roles, broken down: - Opus 5.5, high effort, owns the plan and reviews the final code - Sonnet 5.5, medium effort, is the worker: edits files, runs tests - Haiku 5.5, low effort, splits into explorer (searches and reads the codebase) and researcher (pulls docs). it's the first Haiku with an effort setting - Fable 5.1, set with /advisor fable. Opus calls it at decision points, and it gets the full transcript each time Three moments Opus tends to call it: → before committing to a plan: is this the right approach? → the same error shows up again: is this going nowhere? → before marking the task done: did something get skipped? Why Haiku only reads: Anthropic's launch post says Sonnet 5.5 and Opus 5.5 are still the better choice for complex agentic coding (Terminal-Bench 4.0: 39.2% for Haiku 5.5, 70.6% for Sonnet 5.5) and that Haiku 5.5 fits narrowly scoped subagent work. so it gets the lookups, not the edits. Anyone still running one model for everything is paying $4 per million input tokens to check whether a file exists. Haiku 5.5 does it for $0.10. Drop this into Claude Code 👇 "Rebuild my Claude Code setup around this structure: Confirm Claude Code is v2.1.293 or later, so the haiku alias resolves to Haiku 5.5. If it isn't, stop and tell me to run claude update. Look through ~/.claude/agents and .claude/agents for subagents already covering explorer, worker, and researcher. Only create new ones for roles that are missing. Set model: haiku, effort: low on explorer and researcher, with no Edit or Write tools. Set model: sonnet, effort: medium on worker. If an existing subagent is locked to a different model, leave it as is and just list it. Name the explorer subagent Explore so it overrides the built-in one, which otherwise runs on my main model. In ~/.claude/settings.json, set advisorModel to fable, and set effortLevel to high for claude-opus-5-5 under modelSettings. A top-level effortLevel in user settings doesn't apply to Opus 5.5. Check for anything disabling the advisor: CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADVISOR_TOOL, DISABLE_TELEMETRY, or anything blocking feature-flag fetches. Also check CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL, which overrides subagent effort settings, and CLAUDE_CODE_SUBAGENT_MODEL_FORCE, which makes Claude Code ignore subagent model fields. Report what you find. Don't change any of it yet. Add one line to ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md: consult the advisor before a big plan, when the same error shows up twice, and before marking a long task done. Show every change as a diff first. Wait for my go-ahead before touching anything."

This workflow will save you thousands with Claude. Run Opus 5.5, Sonnet 5.5, Haiku 5.5, and Fable 5.1 together, and stop spending Opus tokens on work that doesn't need Opus. The entire idea in one line: Opus plans, Sonnet edits, Haiku reads, Fable reviews at decision points. Roles, broken down: - Opus 5.5, high effort, owns the plan and reviews the final code - Sonnet 5.5, medium effort, is the worker: edits files, runs tests - Haiku 5.5, low effort, splits into explorer (searches and reads the codebase) and researcher (pulls docs). it's the first Haiku with an effort setting - Fable 5.1, set with /advisor fable. Opus calls it at decision points, and it gets the full transcript each time Three moments Opus tends to call it: → before committing to a plan: is this the right approach? → the same error shows up again: is this going nowhere? → before marking the task done: did something get skipped? Why Haiku only reads: Anthropic's launch post says Sonnet 5.5 and Opus 5.5 are still the better choice for complex agentic coding (Terminal-Bench 4.0: 39.2% for Haiku 5.5, 70.6% for Sonnet 5.5) and that Haiku 5.5 fits narrowly scoped subagent work. so it gets the lookups, not the edits. Anyone still running one model for everything is paying $4 per million input tokens to check whether a file exists. Haiku 5.5 does it for $0.10. Drop this into Claude Code 👇 "Rebuild my Claude Code setup around this structure: Confirm Claude Code is v2.1.293 or later, so the haiku alias resolves to Haiku 5.5. If it isn't, stop and tell me to run claude update. Look through ~/.claude/agents and .claude/agents for subagents already covering explorer, worker, and researcher. Only create new ones for roles that are missing. Set model: haiku, effort: low on explorer and researcher, with no Edit or Write tools. Set model: sonnet, effort: medium on worker. If an existing subagent is locked to a different model, leave it as is and just list it. Name the explorer subagent Explore so it overrides the built-in one, which otherwise runs on my main model. In ~/.claude/settings.json, set advisorModel to fable, and set effortLevel to high for claude-opus-5-5 under modelSettings. A top-level effortLevel in user settings doesn't apply to Opus 5.5. Check for anything disabling the advisor: CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADVISOR_TOOL, DISABLE_TELEMETRY, or anything blocking feature-flag fetches. Also check CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL, which overrides subagent effort settings, and CLAUDE_CODE_SUBAGENT_MODEL_FORCE, which makes Claude Code ignore subagent model fields. Report what you find. Don't change any of it yet. Add one line to ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md: consult the advisor before a big plan, when the same error shows up twice, and before marking a long task done. Show every change as a diff first. Wait for my go-ahead before touching anything."

Alvaro Cintas

51,598 次观看 • 1 天前

Are AI agents shape rotators? In this new benchmark, we let the models play campaign puzzles in Opus Magnum, a puzzle game by Zachtronics. Ironically, Claude Opus 4.8 performed poorly, being beaten by GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.5 Flash, and GLM 5.2. Claude Fable 5 crushed them all.

Are AI agents shape rotators? In this new benchmark, we let the models play campaign puzzles in Opus Magnum, a puzzle game by Zachtronics. Ironically, Claude Opus 4.8 performed poorly, being beaten by GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.5 Flash, and GLM 5.2. Claude Fable 5 crushed them all.

Rob Haisfield

501,638 次观看 • 3 个月前

Opus 5.5 + Jev = crack. This is quite literally the most powerful AI trading bot setup you could run. My new high-frequency Opus 5.5 + Jev trading bot (full guide):

Opus 5.5 + Jev = crack. This is quite literally the most powerful AI trading bot setup you could run. My new high-frequency Opus 5.5 + Jev trading bot (full guide):

Miles Deutscher

90,688 次观看 • 9 天前

Inflectiv 2.0 is now LIVE. The problem was never agents. It was what they run on. 2.0 turns raw data into real intelligence. Ingested. AI-ready. Tradable. All in one platform.

Inflectiv 2.0 is now LIVE. The problem was never agents. It was what they run on. 2.0 turns raw data into real intelligence. Ingested. AI-ready. Tradable. All in one platform.

Inflectiv AI ⧉

91,655 次观看 • 8 个月前

Introducing Otto - a new way to interact and work with AI Agents - using tables! Now you can have hundreds of agents working for you at the same time

Introducing Otto - a new way to interact and work with AI Agents - using tables! Now you can have hundreds of agents working for you at the same time

Sully

422,089 次观看 • 2 年前

Jensen Huang: "Nvidia runs 7,500,000 agents for 75,000 people." that's 100 AI workers for every human employee. he goes further than that. "for the very first time, we have useful AI." not AI that answers questions. AI that does the work. and he's not talking about people who occasionally prompt ChatGPT. he means people who actually run agents in parallel. most people don't know you can already do this. one button. one prompt. up to 300 agents working at the same time. it's called Kimi Agent Swarm. 100 CVs tailored to 100 job descriptions. one prompt. 40 research papers into a 100,000-word review. one prompt. 30 landing pages for 30 businesses. one prompt. $40,000-$100,000 worth of work. one sitting. full breakdown in the article below.

Jensen Huang: "Nvidia runs 7,500,000 agents for 75,000 people." that's 100 AI workers for every human employee. he goes further than that. "for the very first time, we have useful AI." not AI that answers questions. AI that does the work. and he's not talking about people who occasionally prompt ChatGPT. he means people who actually run agents in parallel. most people don't know you can already do this. one button. one prompt. up to 300 agents working at the same time. it's called Kimi Agent Swarm. 100 CVs tailored to 100 job descriptions. one prompt. 40 research papers into a 100,000-word review. one prompt. 30 landing pages for 30 businesses. one prompt. $40,000-$100,000 worth of work. one sitting. full breakdown in the article below.

Dep

11,924 次观看 • 4 个月前

Jev + Opus 5.5 is the most underrated setup in AI right now, and i don't get why nobody's talking about it. I stopped letting Opus make every small decision in my agents. Jev makes them now. My Opus bill dropped ~500% on the same tasks, same results. Here's what Jev handles: - which files and notes to load before Opus sees anything - which effort level each task actually needs - what to do when a tool fails - which tests to run, and when to stop Opus only gets called for the hard reasoning. Every decision is a typed result the host checks before it runs. The exact prompt to set this up in your workflow is below.

Jev + Opus 5.5 is the most underrated setup in AI right now, and i don't get why nobody's talking about it. I stopped letting Opus make every small decision in my agents. Jev makes them now. My Opus bill dropped ~500% on the same tasks, same results. Here's what Jev handles: - which files and notes to load before Opus sees anything - which effort level each task actually needs - what to do when a tool fails - which tests to run, and when to stop Opus only gets called for the hard reasoning. Every decision is a typed result the host checks before it runs. The exact prompt to set this up in your workflow is below.

Anatoli Kopadze

76,655 次观看 • 12 天前

Maestro - run multiple Docker AI agents locally in one repo with automatic branching and firewalls. Clone it now: The podium is yours. Conduct the agents. Compose the future.

Maestro - run multiple Docker AI agents locally in one repo with automatic branching and firewalls. Clone it now: The podium is yours. Conduct the agents. Compose the future.

UpRock

21,278 次观看 • 11 个月前

AI can literally do 3D animation now 🔥 Opus 5.5 and Seedance 2.5 turned one prompt into this entire animated scene. Prompt 👇

AI can literally do 3D animation now 🔥 Opus 5.5 and Seedance 2.5 turned one prompt into this entire animated scene. Prompt 👇

Abhishek

40,598 次观看 • 3 天前

Official Anthropic tip for Claude Code: stop burning Opus 5.5 on work Sonnet 5.5 can do, while Fable 5.1 sits idle hand the grunt work to Sonnet 5.5 subagents and put Fable 5.1 on call run /advisor fable Opus 5.5 plans and merges Sonnet 5.5 subagents read, edit and run the tests Fable 5.1 reads the full session and only speaks up at three points: → before a plan: is this the right approach? → when the same error comes back: am I digging in the wrong place? → before "done": what did I miss? Sonnet 5.5 builds. Fable 5.1 reviews. Opus 5.5 ships Jev engineering is the same move one layer down: the forks that need no thinker (which file, which tool, retry or stop) go to Jev in under half a second, and the big models only see the ones that split - the full tree > Opus 5.5 on high runs the main session > explorer reads the code on Sonnet 5.5 > worker edits and runs tests on Sonnet 5.5 > researcher pulls the docs on Sonnet 5.5 > all three on medium > Fable 5.1 on call for main and every subagent paste the tree and this prompt into Claude Code ↓ "Rebuild my Claude Code setup around this tree: 1. Check ~/.claude/agents and .claude/agents for subagents that already fit explorer, worker and researcher. > Draft new ones only for missing roles > Give each model: sonnet, effort: medium > Skip any that pin a different model and list them 2. Set the main session to high via effortLevel in ~/.claude/settings.json, and set advisorModel to fable 3. Find anything that keeps the advisor off (CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADVISOR_TOOL, DISABLE_TELEMETRY) plus CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL, which overrides subagent effort. Report them, change nothing 4. Add one rule to ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md: consult the advisor before a large plan, when an error repeats, and before calling a long task done Show me every change as a diff first. No edits until I say go." ↳

Official Anthropic tip for Claude Code: stop burning Opus 5.5 on work Sonnet 5.5 can do, while Fable 5.1 sits idle hand the grunt work to Sonnet 5.5 subagents and put Fable 5.1 on call run /advisor fable Opus 5.5 plans and merges Sonnet 5.5 subagents read, edit and run the tests Fable 5.1 reads the full session and only speaks up at three points: → before a plan: is this the right approach? → when the same error comes back: am I digging in the wrong place? → before "done": what did I miss? Sonnet 5.5 builds. Fable 5.1 reviews. Opus 5.5 ships Jev engineering is the same move one layer down: the forks that need no thinker (which file, which tool, retry or stop) go to Jev in under half a second, and the big models only see the ones that split - the full tree > Opus 5.5 on high runs the main session > explorer reads the code on Sonnet 5.5 > worker edits and runs tests on Sonnet 5.5 > researcher pulls the docs on Sonnet 5.5 > all three on medium > Fable 5.1 on call for main and every subagent paste the tree and this prompt into Claude Code ↓ "Rebuild my Claude Code setup around this tree: 1. Check ~/.claude/agents and .claude/agents for subagents that already fit explorer, worker and researcher. > Draft new ones only for missing roles > Give each model: sonnet, effort: medium > Skip any that pin a different model and list them 2. Set the main session to high via effortLevel in ~/.claude/settings.json, and set advisorModel to fable 3. Find anything that keeps the advisor off (CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADVISOR_TOOL, DISABLE_TELEMETRY) plus CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL, which overrides subagent effort. Report them, change nothing 4. Add one rule to ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md: consult the advisor before a large plan, when an error repeats, and before calling a long task done Show me every change as a diff first. No edits until I say go." ↳

delost

43,704 次观看 • 6 天前

Anthropic engineer: "You don't need better prompts. You need to master Opus 5.5 engineering: so your agent never forgets anything." In 1 hour he explains what Anthropic does differently, how to build and structure work with agents. This beats any paid agent course I've seen. Watch it, then save the exact Claude Code Opus 5.5 setup guide below 👇

Anthropic engineer: "You don't need better prompts. You need to master Opus 5.5 engineering: so your agent never forgets anything." In 1 hour he explains what Anthropic does differently, how to build and structure work with agents. This beats any paid agent course I've seen. Watch it, then save the exact Claude Code Opus 5.5 setup guide below 👇

darkzodchi

56,592 次观看 • 14 天前

Hermes just killed the hardest part of AI agents. You don’t pick the agent anymore. Here’s what Curator does: → Reads your goal → Breaks it into tasks → Picks the best agents → Assigns the right tools → Runs everything in order You just say what you want. That’s it. Save this video, you’ll finally understand AI agents. Want the SOP? DM me. 💬

Hermes just killed the hardest part of AI agents. You don’t pick the agent anymore. Here’s what Curator does: → Reads your goal → Breaks it into tasks → Picks the best agents → Assigns the right tools → Runs everything in order You just say what you want. That’s it. Save this video, you’ll finally understand AI agents. Want the SOP? DM me. 💬

Julian Goldie SEO

13,585 次观看 • 5 个月前

Agents Virtual Machine is live, the first purpose-built environment tailored for agents. Your AI agents can now think, plan, and execute. Get started at

Agents Virtual Machine is live, the first purpose-built environment tailored for agents. Your AI agents can now think, plan, and execute. Get started at

AVM

40,832 次观看 • 1 年前

BREAKING: New updates to AI Agents on Public → We’ve launched the first-ever marketplace of AI Agents for your portfolio. → Deploy them immediately or customize them. → Share agents you create—with anyone—to run or modify in their account. Also, no more waitlist. Agents are now live for everyone, both mobile and web.

BREAKING: New updates to AI Agents on Public → We’ve launched the first-ever marketplace of AI Agents for your portfolio. → Deploy them immediately or customize them. → Share agents you create—with anyone—to run or modify in their account. Also, no more waitlist. Agents are now live for everyone, both mobile and web.

Public

601,244 次观看 • 1 个月前

AI Agents will power the majority of DeFi onchain transactions and activity. Jon Jones | Supra shares how Supra brings together the tools AI Agents need into one unified stack. Automation helps agents run workflows much faster, securely, and effectively.

AI Agents will power the majority of DeFi onchain transactions and activity. Jon Jones | Supra shares how Supra brings together the tools AI Agents need into one unified stack. Automation helps agents run workflows much faster, securely, and effectively.

Supra

143,670 次观看 • 1 年前

This is f*cking insane. This Claude Code tip saved me thousands of dollars. once Opus 5.5 is your main model, stop burning it on work Sonnet 5.5 can do, while Fable 5.1 sits idle hand the grunt work to Sonnet 5.5 subagents and put Fable 5.1 on call run /advisor fable Opus 5.5 plans and ships the final code Sonnet 5.5 subagents read, edit and run the tests Fable 5.1 reads the full session, every tool call included, and only speaks up at three points: → before a plan: is this the right approach? → when the same error comes back: am I digging in the wrong place? → before "done": what did I miss? Sonnet 5.5 builds. Fable 5.1 reviews. Opus 5.5 ships Jev engineering is the same move one layer down: the forks that need no thinker (which file, which tool, retry or stop) go to Jev in under half a second, and the big models only see the ones that split anyone still running one model for everything is paying Opus prices to decide whether a file exists - the full tree > Opus 5.5 on high runs the main session > explorer reads the code on Sonnet 5.5 > worker edits and runs tests on Sonnet 5.5 > researcher pulls the docs on Sonnet 5.5 > all three on medium > Fable 5.1 on call for main and every subagent paste the tree and this prompt into Claude Code ↓ "Rebuild my Claude Code setup around this tree: 1. Check ~/.claude/agents and .claude/agents for subagents that already fit explorer, worker and researcher. > Draft new ones only for missing roles > Give each model: sonnet, effort: medium > Skip any that pin a different model and list them 2. Set the main session to high via effortLevel in ~/.claude/settings.json, and set advisorModel to fable 3. Find anything that keeps the advisor off (CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADVISOR_TOOL, DISABLE_TELEMETRY) plus CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL, which overrides subagent effort. Report them, change nothing 4. Add one rule to ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md: consult the advisor before a large plan, when an error repeats, and before calling a long task done Show me every change as a diff first. No edits until I say go." ↳

This is f*cking insane. This Claude Code tip saved me thousands of dollars. once Opus 5.5 is your main model, stop burning it on work Sonnet 5.5 can do, while Fable 5.1 sits idle hand the grunt work to Sonnet 5.5 subagents and put Fable 5.1 on call run /advisor fable Opus 5.5 plans and ships the final code Sonnet 5.5 subagents read, edit and run the tests Fable 5.1 reads the full session, every tool call included, and only speaks up at three points: → before a plan: is this the right approach? → when the same error comes back: am I digging in the wrong place? → before "done": what did I miss? Sonnet 5.5 builds. Fable 5.1 reviews. Opus 5.5 ships Jev engineering is the same move one layer down: the forks that need no thinker (which file, which tool, retry or stop) go to Jev in under half a second, and the big models only see the ones that split anyone still running one model for everything is paying Opus prices to decide whether a file exists - the full tree > Opus 5.5 on high runs the main session > explorer reads the code on Sonnet 5.5 > worker edits and runs tests on Sonnet 5.5 > researcher pulls the docs on Sonnet 5.5 > all three on medium > Fable 5.1 on call for main and every subagent paste the tree and this prompt into Claude Code ↓ "Rebuild my Claude Code setup around this tree: 1. Check ~/.claude/agents and .claude/agents for subagents that already fit explorer, worker and researcher. > Draft new ones only for missing roles > Give each model: sonnet, effort: medium > Skip any that pin a different model and list them 2. Set the main session to high via effortLevel in ~/.claude/settings.json, and set advisorModel to fable 3. Find anything that keeps the advisor off (CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADVISOR_TOOL, DISABLE_TELEMETRY) plus CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL, which overrides subagent effort. Report them, change nothing 4. Add one rule to ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md: consult the advisor before a large plan, when an error repeats, and before calling a long task done Show me every change as a diff first. No edits until I say go." ↳

delost

48,238 次观看 • 5 天前