Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

Do the math on 1,000 coding tasks a month. Opus 5.5 doing everything: $6,420 Jev + Opus 5.5: $2,000 That's $4,420 a month back. $53,040 a year. Same tasks. Same model writing the code. The only difference is who makes the small decisions. Full build below. Bookmark this.

CyrilXBT

197,146 subscribers

31,446 Aufrufe • vor 3 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

Kunst Bildung Wissenschaft & Technologie

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

9 Kommentare

Profilbild von pranjulya

pranjulyavor 3 Tagen

The small decisions tax is the part of my bill I never budget for. I burn more on routing fluff than on the one hard function call. If a cheap model can own the trivia, my wallet stays happier.

Profilbild von MalikiAoweed

MalikiAoweedvor 3 Tagen

Same code, same model, but if you let Jev steer instead of Opus 5.5, you pocket $53k a year. The only thing you’re automating is your own wallet.

Profilbild von Macro Bombastic

Macro Bombasticvor 3 Tagen

yeah the small decisions are where the real money is tbh

Profilbild von 𝓔𝓼𝓶𝓮𝔂𝓲🌸

𝓔𝓼𝓶𝓮𝔂𝓲🌸vor 3 Tagen

Okay, you've got my attention! 💋

Profilbild von Âxel ⟢

Âxel ⟢vor 3 Tagen

I will

Profilbild von 𝓔𝓼𝓶𝓮𝓵𝓮𝔂𝓱𝓱🌸

𝓔𝓼𝓶𝓮𝓵𝓮𝔂𝓱𝓱🌸vor 3 Tagen

Not gonna lie, I like this! 💖

Profilbild von Andreanne Connelly

Andreanne Connellyvor 3 Tagen

the way this casually outperformed everything else today

Profilbild von Cheftoshi

Cheftoshivor 3 Tagen

jev took the boring half of the bill

Profilbild von 𝓔𝓼𝓶𝓮𝓵𝓮𝓪𝓱𝓱𝓱🌸

𝓔𝓼𝓶𝓮𝓵𝓮𝓪𝓱𝓱𝓱🌸vor 3 Tagen

Life is better with good company! 🩷

Ähnliche Videos

Jev + Opus 5.5, side by side. same agent. same task. same 60 decisions. Opus-only: $2.24 - 3m 37s Jev + Opus: $0.43 - 1m 15s the difference is who makes the small calls: which tool runs next - Jev is this output good enough - Jev is the goal met - Jev rewrite the refund handler - Opus 57 of 60 decisions never touched Opus. what you're watching: left routes every decision through Opus 5.5. right asks Jev first, Opus only fires when the task needs real reasoning. per decision: $0.032 -> $0.00025. watch the cost counters, not the output. the output is identical. full setup in the post below ↓

Jev + Opus 5.5, side by side. same agent. same task. same 60 decisions. Opus-only: $2.24 - 3m 37s Jev + Opus: $0.43 - 1m 15s the difference is who makes the small calls: which tool runs next - Jev is this output good enough - Jev is the goal met - Jev rewrite the refund handler - Opus 57 of 60 decisions never touched Opus. what you're watching: left routes every decision through Opus 5.5. right asks Jev first, Opus only fires when the task needs real reasoning. per decision: $0.032 -> $0.00025. watch the cost counters, not the output. the output is identical. full setup in the post below ↓

Mahax

19,565 Aufrufe • vor 16 Tagen

Your coding agent is a surgeon doing the paperwork. Opus 5.5 is brilliant. And you're paying it to decide which file to open. Which test to run. Whether to retry. That's not surgery. That's admin. Give the admin to Jev. Keep the surgeon in surgery. Same results. A third of the bill. Full architecture below 👇

Your coding agent is a surgeon doing the paperwork. Opus 5.5 is brilliant. And you're paying it to decide which file to open. Which test to run. Whether to retry. That's not surgery. That's admin. Give the admin to Jev. Keep the surgeon in surgery. Same results. A third of the bill. Full architecture below 👇

CyrilXBT

29,553 Aufrufe • vor 3 Tagen

stop picking one model, a spider merged OPUS 5.5 + SONNET 5.5 + JEV + OPENAI DOTS into one business system one command splits a business into 6 jobs: plan, code, decide, run 24/7, review and ship every job has 4 candidates. the spider scans them one by one, marks the highest score as best, locks it in and swings to the next job the plan goes to Opus 5.5 at 0.94. Jev scores 0.52 on the same job on decisions it flips. Jev wins at 0.97 and Opus 5.5 gets 0.74, so the model that lost the plan is the one making the calls the code goes to Claude Code, and the job called "who never sleeps" goes to OpenAI Dots Opus 5.5 comes back a second time to check the work, and Sonnet 5.5 gets it out at the end 6 of 6 modules are locked and the system goes online run the same test on your own stack before you pay one model to do all six jobs ↓

stop picking one model, a spider merged OPUS 5.5 + SONNET 5.5 + JEV + OPENAI DOTS into one business system one command splits a business into 6 jobs: plan, code, decide, run 24/7, review and ship every job has 4 candidates. the spider scans them one by one, marks the highest score as best, locks it in and swings to the next job the plan goes to Opus 5.5 at 0.94. Jev scores 0.52 on the same job on decisions it flips. Jev wins at 0.97 and Opus 5.5 gets 0.74, so the model that lost the plan is the one making the calls the code goes to Claude Code, and the job called "who never sleeps" goes to OpenAI Dots Opus 5.5 comes back a second time to check the work, and Sonnet 5.5 gets it out at the end 6 of 6 modules are locked and the system goes online run the same test on your own stack before you pay one model to do all six jobs ↓

Noisy

11,722 Aufrufe • vor 9 Tagen

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 Aufrufe • vor 17 Tagen

i just plugged jevrouter into claude code and it's actually insane 💀 same bug. same repo. same prompt. left is opus 5.5 doing everything right is claude code on jev, switching models mid task opus plans it. deepseek writes it. sol takes the hard fix. glm cleans up watch the bill at the bottom opus: 62s, $0.32 jev: 44s, $0.19 both passed all 9 tests i'm never going back

i just plugged jevrouter into claude code and it's actually insane 💀 same bug. same repo. same prompt. left is opus 5.5 doing everything right is claude code on jev, switching models mid task opus plans it. deepseek writes it. sol takes the hard fix. glm cleans up watch the bill at the bottom opus: 62s, $0.32 jev: 44s, $0.19 both passed all 9 tests i'm never going back

Vadim

12,251 Aufrufe • vor 16 Tagen

THIS IS PURE F*CKING GOLD Anthropic just shared one of the best tricks for Claude Code. The idea: run Sonnet, Haiku and Opus 5.5 at the same time, each one doing only what it's best at. Better results and way fewer tokens, because every task lands on the right model. You just start Claude Code like this: claude --model sonnet --advisor opus here's how it splits: → Sonnet 5 runs the session and writes the code → Haiku 5.5 explores files and docs in parallel → Opus 5.5 stays on call as advisor for the big decisions → you stop burning Opus context on tasks that don't need it Opus only steps in at three moments: → before a plan locks → when the same error hits twice → before calling it done Sonnet builds. Haiku explores. Opus reviews. 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 milliseconds, and the big models only see the ones that split the full tree > Sonnet 5 runs the main session and edits code > search maps the repo on Haiku 5.5 > grep finds call sites on Haiku 5.5 > docs pulls the API reference on Haiku 5.5 > Opus 5.5 on call as advisor, reads the full transcript when consulted > JEV routes micro-forks in milliseconds paste the tree and this prompt into Claude Code ↓ "Reconfigure my Claude Code setup around this tree: 1. Run the main session on Sonnet 5 with Opus 5.5 as advisor. 2. Create three read-only Haiku 5.5 subagents: search (maps the repo), grep (finds call sites), docs (pulls the API reference). 3. Add one rule to CLAUDE.md: consult the advisor before locking a plan, after the same error twice, and before calling a task done. 4. Route fast deterministic forks (tool choice, path selection, retries) through JEV. Show me every change as a diff first. No edits until I say go." ↳ save it, it'll come in handy.

THIS IS PURE F*CKING GOLD Anthropic just shared one of the best tricks for Claude Code. The idea: run Sonnet, Haiku and Opus 5.5 at the same time, each one doing only what it's best at. Better results and way fewer tokens, because every task lands on the right model. You just start Claude Code like this: claude --model sonnet --advisor opus here's how it splits: → Sonnet 5 runs the session and writes the code → Haiku 5.5 explores files and docs in parallel → Opus 5.5 stays on call as advisor for the big decisions → you stop burning Opus context on tasks that don't need it Opus only steps in at three moments: → before a plan locks → when the same error hits twice → before calling it done Sonnet builds. Haiku explores. Opus reviews. 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 milliseconds, and the big models only see the ones that split the full tree > Sonnet 5 runs the main session and edits code > search maps the repo on Haiku 5.5 > grep finds call sites on Haiku 5.5 > docs pulls the API reference on Haiku 5.5 > Opus 5.5 on call as advisor, reads the full transcript when consulted > JEV routes micro-forks in milliseconds paste the tree and this prompt into Claude Code ↓ "Reconfigure my Claude Code setup around this tree: 1. Run the main session on Sonnet 5 with Opus 5.5 as advisor. 2. Create three read-only Haiku 5.5 subagents: search (maps the repo), grep (finds call sites), docs (pulls the API reference). 3. Add one rule to CLAUDE.md: consult the advisor before locking a plan, after the same error twice, and before calling a task done. 4. Route fast deterministic forks (tool choice, path selection, retries) through JEV. Show me every change as a diff first. No edits until I say go." ↳ save it, it'll come in handy.

delost

307,700 Aufrufe • vor 3 Tagen

I used Opus 5.5 to make a motion design video about Haiku This is 100% motion graphics and code Short story about Opus delegating small tasks to Haiku Prompt in the comments

I used Opus 5.5 to make a motion design video about Haiku This is 100% motion graphics and code Short story about Opus delegating small tasks to Haiku Prompt in the comments

Baptiste (Kelano)

20,111 Aufrufe • vor 6 Tagen

THIS IS ACTUAL F*CKING GOLD Anthropic just shared one of the best tricks for Claude Code. The idea: run Sonnet, Haiku and Opus 5.5 together, each one doing only the job it's best at. Opus-level judgment on every big call, without paying Opus rates for every routine turn. You just launch Claude Code like this: claude --model sonnet --advisor opus here's the split: → Sonnet 5.5 runs the session and writes the code → Haiku 5.5 explores files and docs in parallel → Opus 5.5 stays on call as advisor for the big calls → you stop spending Opus on work that doesn't need it Opus only steps in at three moments: → before a plan locks → when the same error shows up twice → before calling it done Sonnet builds. Haiku explores. Opus reviews. 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 milliseconds, and the big models only see the ones that split the full tree > Sonnet 5.5 runs the main session and edits code > search maps the repo on Haiku 5.5 > grep finds call sites on Haiku 5.5 > docs pulls the API reference on Haiku 5.5 > Opus 5.5 on call as advisor, reads the whole transcript when consulted > JEV routes micro-forks in milliseconds paste the tree and this prompt into Claude Code ↓ "Rebuild my Claude Code setup around this tree: 1. Run the main session on Sonnet 5.5 with Opus 5.5 as advisor. 2. Create three read-only Haiku 5.5 subagents: search (maps the repo), grep (finds call sites), docs (pulls the API reference). 3. Add one rule to CLAUDE.md: consult the advisor before locking a plan, after the same error twice, and before calling a task done. 4. Route fast deterministic forks (tool choice, path selection, retries) through JEV. Show me every change as a diff first. No edits until I say go." ↳ save it, you'll use this every single day.

THIS IS ACTUAL F*CKING GOLD Anthropic just shared one of the best tricks for Claude Code. The idea: run Sonnet, Haiku and Opus 5.5 together, each one doing only the job it's best at. Opus-level judgment on every big call, without paying Opus rates for every routine turn. You just launch Claude Code like this: claude --model sonnet --advisor opus here's the split: → Sonnet 5.5 runs the session and writes the code → Haiku 5.5 explores files and docs in parallel → Opus 5.5 stays on call as advisor for the big calls → you stop spending Opus on work that doesn't need it Opus only steps in at three moments: → before a plan locks → when the same error shows up twice → before calling it done Sonnet builds. Haiku explores. Opus reviews. 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 milliseconds, and the big models only see the ones that split the full tree > Sonnet 5.5 runs the main session and edits code > search maps the repo on Haiku 5.5 > grep finds call sites on Haiku 5.5 > docs pulls the API reference on Haiku 5.5 > Opus 5.5 on call as advisor, reads the whole transcript when consulted > JEV routes micro-forks in milliseconds paste the tree and this prompt into Claude Code ↓ "Rebuild my Claude Code setup around this tree: 1. Run the main session on Sonnet 5.5 with Opus 5.5 as advisor. 2. Create three read-only Haiku 5.5 subagents: search (maps the repo), grep (finds call sites), docs (pulls the API reference). 3. Add one rule to CLAUDE.md: consult the advisor before locking a plan, after the same error twice, and before calling a task done. 4. Route fast deterministic forks (tool choice, path selection, retries) through JEV. Show me every change as a diff first. No edits until I say go." ↳ save it, you'll use this every single day.

delost

301,092 Aufrufe • vor 1 Tag

Anthropic launched Sonnet 5.5, made it as good as Opus 5.5, then went ahead and nerfed Opus 5.5. Crazy marketing. We tested Opus 5.5 on launch day and again today, on the same open-world GTA 6 India prompt. Launch day vs today below. The difference is clearly visible.

Anthropic launched Sonnet 5.5, made it as good as Opus 5.5, then went ahead and nerfed Opus 5.5. Crazy marketing. We tested Opus 5.5 on launch day and again today, on the same open-world GTA 6 India prompt. Launch day vs today below. The difference is clearly visible.

Build Fast with AI

108,002 Aufrufe • vor 13 Tagen

$this is pure f*cking treasure Claude Code tip: once Opus 5.5 is your main model, stop leaving Fable 5.1 sitting idle and stop burning Opus tokens on tasks Sonnet 5.5 can swarm put it on call with /goal claude --auto-mode "/goal all tests pass and lint is clean" Opus 5.5 keeps writing the code in auto mode Sonnet 5.5 swarms the routine work at medium Fable 5.1 inspects the full transcript and only speaks up at the turn boundary: → not yet met: am I drifting from acceptance criteria? → met: do the tests, diffs, and lint hold? → impossible: am I chasing an unreachable state? Fable grades. Opus ships JEV engineering is the same move one layer down: the forks that need no thinker (which file, which tool, retry or halt) go to JEV in under 16ms, and the big models only see the ones that split — the full tree > Opus 5.5 on high runs the main session > worker edits and patches code on Sonnet 5.5 > explorer indexes AST maps and call sites on Sonnet 5.5 > verifier runs tests and linters on Sonnet 5.5 > all three subagents on medium effort > Fable 5.1 on call as the Stop hook evaluator > JEV routes micro-forks under 16ms paste the tree and this prompt into Claude Code ↓ "Reconfigure my Claude Code setup around this tree: 1. Set the main session to Opus 5.5 on high effort with auto mode enabled. 2. Put Fable 5.1 on call as a session-scoped evaluator attached to the Stop hook: - Read-only transcript evaluation with zero tool calls - Three structured outcomes: not yet met (with steering notes), met (auto-clear), and impossible (abort early) 3. Spawn Sonnet 5.5 subagents on medium effort for worker, explorer, and verifier roles. Defer goal checks while background tasks run. 4. Route fast deterministic forks (tool resolution, path selection, auto-retries) through JEV. 5. Add one rule to CLAUDE.md: run long tasks with: claude --auto-mode \"/goal \" Show me every configuration change as a diff first. No edits until I say go." ↳$

this is pure f*cking treasure Claude Code tip: once Opus 5.5 is your main model, stop leaving Fable 5.1 sitting idle and stop burning Opus tokens on tasks Sonnet 5.5 can swarm put it on call with /goal claude --auto-mode "/goal all tests pass and lint is clean" Opus 5.5 keeps writing the code in auto mode Sonnet 5.5 swarms the routine work at medium Fable 5.1 inspects the full transcript and only speaks up at the turn boundary: → not yet met: am I drifting from acceptance criteria? → met: do the tests, diffs, and lint hold? → impossible: am I chasing an unreachable state? Fable grades. Opus ships JEV engineering is the same move one layer down: the forks that need no thinker (which file, which tool, retry or halt) go to JEV in under 16ms, and the big models only see the ones that split — the full tree > Opus 5.5 on high runs the main session > worker edits and patches code on Sonnet 5.5 > explorer indexes AST maps and call sites on Sonnet 5.5 > verifier runs tests and linters on Sonnet 5.5 > all three subagents on medium effort > Fable 5.1 on call as the Stop hook evaluator > JEV routes micro-forks under 16ms paste the tree and this prompt into Claude Code ↓ "Reconfigure my Claude Code setup around this tree: 1. Set the main session to Opus 5.5 on high effort with auto mode enabled. 2. Put Fable 5.1 on call as a session-scoped evaluator attached to the Stop hook: - Read-only transcript evaluation with zero tool calls - Three structured outcomes: not yet met (with steering notes), met (auto-clear), and impossible (abort early) 3. Spawn Sonnet 5.5 subagents on medium effort for worker, explorer, and verifier roles. Defer goal checks while background tasks run. 4. Route fast deterministic forks (tool resolution, path selection, auto-retries) through JEV. 5. Add one rule to CLAUDE.md: run long tasks with: claude --auto-mode \"/goal \" Show me every configuration change as a diff first. No edits until I say go." ↳

mirku

41,812 Aufrufe • vor 8 Tagen

> 20 free daily tokens covers a full working session on GPT 5.5 or GLM > Opus 4.7 handles 2-3 serious architecture tasks per day at zero cost > one GitHub account can link to multiple Tembo accounts, the math on that is obvious > 5 minutes to sign up. 10 minutes to your first merged PR > no clarifying questions, prompts have to be precise, the agent just executes > the $100/month tools and the $0 tool are now producing the same output on most tasks and most developers haven't noticed yet this is not a discount → this is the same models → the same → capability → the same output → for nothing!

> 20 free daily tokens covers a full working session on GPT 5.5 or GLM > Opus 4.7 handles 2-3 serious architecture tasks per day at zero cost > one GitHub account can link to multiple Tembo accounts, the math on that is obvious > 5 minutes to sign up. 10 minutes to your first merged PR > no clarifying questions, prompts have to be precise, the agent just executes > the $100/month tools and the $0 tool are now producing the same output on most tasks and most developers haven't noticed yet this is not a discount → this is the same models → the same → capability → the same output → for nothing!

Shadow Nick

26,539 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Boris Cherny, creator of Claude Code: "Opus 5.5 does in a day what used to take your team a month. Most people will keep using it wrong." In 12 minutes he explains why Opus 5.5 needs less prompting than any model before, and why your old detailed prompts now work against you. Watch it, then read the article below on how to prompt Opus 5.5 👇

Boris Cherny, creator of Claude Code: "Opus 5.5 does in a day what used to take your team a month. Most people will keep using it wrong." In 12 minutes he explains why Opus 5.5 needs less prompting than any model before, and why your old detailed prompts now work against you. Watch it, then read the article below on how to prompt Opus 5.5 👇

Rahul

151,024 Aufrufe • vor 19 Tagen

OPUS 5.5 + DOTS + JEV closed 312 tickets in one week while 25 engineers closed 96... that org chart costs $343,750 a month in payroll the agent costs $2,055 a month in tokens, 167x less the code comes from Opus 5.5, the tests from Dots, and nothing reaches done without Jev's review only 410 of the team's 1,000 weekly hours are writing code, and that 41% is what the agent takes the other 590 are meetings, review, on-call, customers and deciding on the other side is a business billing $120,198 a month, 402 people paying $299 after fees, hosting, the agent and 3 humans, $66,887 is left before tax and $120,198 pays for 8.7 engineers at most, so that business never had 25 to replace ↓

OPUS 5.5 + DOTS + JEV closed 312 tickets in one week while 25 engineers closed 96... that org chart costs $343,750 a month in payroll the agent costs $2,055 a month in tokens, 167x less the code comes from Opus 5.5, the tests from Dots, and nothing reaches done without Jev's review only 410 of the team's 1,000 weekly hours are writing code, and that 41% is what the agent takes the other 590 are meetings, review, on-call, customers and deciding on the other side is a business billing $120,198 a month, 402 people paying $299 after fees, hosting, the agent and 3 humans, $66,887 is left before tax and $120,198 pays for 8.7 engineers at most, so that business never had 25 to replace ↓

Sprytix

19,270 Aufrufe • vor 11 Tagen

I asked Opus 5.5 to make a game inspired by the discovery of the first computer, the Antikythera mechanism. Everything you see and hear is procedurally generated in real time, from code by Opus 5.5. It's a single 3 MB HTML file. Playable Claude artifact below.

I asked Opus 5.5 to make a game inspired by the discovery of the first computer, the Antikythera mechanism. Everything you see and hear is procedurally generated in real time, from code by Opus 5.5. It's a single 3 MB HTML file. Playable Claude artifact below.

edwin

394,747 Aufrufe • vor 22 Tagen

This is what the future of coding looks like. Multiple AI models working in the same Codex session, with Jev routing them to tackle different parts of the task. Here, I had it build a full-stack demo app: > Opus 5.5 planned it. > GPT-6 Astra built the backend. > Kimi K3 built the frontend. > DeepSeek handled testing. > GLM 5.3 Flash wrote the docs. Jev handles the switching. I never touched the model picker. 40% cheaper, 15% faster for the same build.

This is what the future of coding looks like. Multiple AI models working in the same Codex session, with Jev routing them to tackle different parts of the task. Here, I had it build a full-stack demo app: > Opus 5.5 planned it. > GPT-6 Astra built the backend. > Kimi K3 built the frontend. > DeepSeek handled testing. > GLM 5.3 Flash wrote the docs. Jev handles the switching. I never touched the model picker. 40% cheaper, 15% faster for the same build.

elvis

16,347 Aufrufe • vor 16 Tagen

Claude Opus 5.5 completely MOGS GPT 6 Sol. Same prompt. Same task. Look at the results. Opus 5.5 has way better taste and design. It is not subtle. You can see it immediately. GPT 6 Sol is a step up from GPT 5.6 Sol. But next to Opus 5.5 it is not even close. Anthropic is back.

Claude Opus 5.5 completely MOGS GPT 6 Sol. Same prompt. Same task. Look at the results. Opus 5.5 has way better taste and design. It is not subtle. You can see it immediately. GPT 6 Sol is a step up from GPT 5.6 Sol. But next to Opus 5.5 it is not even close. Anthropic is back.

Bridgebench

55,327 Aufrufe • vor 22 Tagen

this is the full SEO course, run on Opus 5.5 7 modules. 7 prompts. most people ask AI to "do SEO" and get generic advice back the model can't see Google, so you have to feed it your data every prompt is in the thread below which module do you need first?

this is the full SEO course, run on Opus 5.5 7 modules. 7 prompts. most people ask AI to "do SEO" and get generic advice back the model can't see Google, so you have to feed it your data every prompt is in the thread below which module do you need first?

CyrilXBT

13,819 Aufrufe • vor 19 Tagen

Opus 5.5 is quietly the best value model Anthropic has shipped. Anthropic just published the official playbook for Opus 5.5, written by Addy Osmani, who spent years on Google's Chrome team. 40% cheaper than Opus 5. Cache reads 60% cheaper. Fable 5.1 level on most tasks. Runs for hours on its own. If you're still prompting it like the old models, you're paying more for less. Everything you need is in the article.

Opus 5.5 is quietly the best value model Anthropic has shipped. Anthropic just published the official playbook for Opus 5.5, written by Addy Osmani, who spent years on Google's Chrome team. 40% cheaper than Opus 5. Cache reads 60% cheaper. Fable 5.1 level on most tasks. Runs for hours on its own. If you're still prompting it like the old models, you're paying more for less. Everything you need is in the article.

Dami-Defi

11,518 Aufrufe • vor 18 Tagen

Claude Code tip: once Opus 5.5 is your main model, stop leaving Fable 5.1 sitting idle and stop burning Opus tokens on tasks Sonnet 5.5 can swarm put it on call with /advisor run /advisor fable Opus 5.5 plans and ships the code Sonnet 5.5 swarms the routine work at medium effort 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? Fable 5.1 reviews. Sonnet 5.5 executes. 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 model only sees the ones that split Plan on high. Delegate on medium. Keep Fable on call. - the full tree > Opus 5.5 on high runs the main session > explorer reads the code > worker edits and runs tests > researcher pulls the docs > all three on Sonnet 5.5 at medium effort > Fable 5.1 on call as the advisor 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, any variable that stops feature-flag fetching) 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." ↳

Claude Code tip: once Opus 5.5 is your main model, stop leaving Fable 5.1 sitting idle and stop burning Opus tokens on tasks Sonnet 5.5 can swarm put it on call with /advisor run /advisor fable Opus 5.5 plans and ships the code Sonnet 5.5 swarms the routine work at medium effort 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? Fable 5.1 reviews. Sonnet 5.5 executes. 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 model only sees the ones that split Plan on high. Delegate on medium. Keep Fable on call. - the full tree > Opus 5.5 on high runs the main session > explorer reads the code > worker edits and runs tests > researcher pulls the docs > all three on Sonnet 5.5 at medium effort > Fable 5.1 on call as the advisor 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, any variable that stops feature-flag fetching) 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." ↳

mirku

421,711 Aufrufe • vor 15 Tagen

BEFORE: 2,000 notes. Zero I could find. Inbox full of guilt. AFTER: Inbox empty every morning. Every note linked. Weekly review written for me. Same notes. Different brain. The difference is Opus 5.5 and one CLAUDE. md file. How to set it up from scratch 👇

BEFORE: 2,000 notes. Zero I could find. Inbox full of guilt. AFTER: Inbox empty every morning. Every note linked. Weekly review written for me. Same notes. Different brain. The difference is Opus 5.5 and one CLAUDE. md file. How to set it up from scratch 👇

CyrilXBT

31,206 Aufrufe • vor 11 Tagen