Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Fable 5 comes back！It can now build playable game prototypes. I think it is actually a signal for where AI coding is going. Making a game is not just “write some code.” Even a small browser game needs: game loop；character movement；collision logic；scoring system；UI states；physics tuning；visual feedback；bug fixing；playtesting This is... why game prototyping is a great test for AI models. A model cannot fake it with a pretty answer. Either the game runs, or it does not. What impressed me about Fable 5 is that it is useful for the messy middle: turning an idea into mechanics, turning mechanics into code, debugging broken interactions, and iterating until the prototype feels playable. But here is the practical part: I would not use the strongest model for every step. For game building, I would split the workflow: 1. Fable 5 for game design + architecture 2. a fast coding model for routine implementation 3. a vision-capable model for screenshot/UI feedback 4. a cheaper model for docs, test cases, and small fixes 5. fallback when latency, cost, or output quality becomes a problem That is the real AI coding stack. Not “one magic model does everything.” More like: the right model, for the right task, at the right cost, with fallback when things break. This is why I’ve been looking at ZenMux ZenMux. ZenMux gives developers one gateway to access multiple leading AI models, with OpenAI / Anthropic / Google Vertex compatible APIs, cost tracking, quality benchmarks, auto-routing, and compensation when output quality, latency, or throughput falls short. If AI can now make games, the next question is not just “which model is strongest?” It is:how do we manage the whole model workflow Fable 5 shows the creative ceiling. ZenMux is closer to the infrastructure layer you need when AI coding becomes a real production habit.show more

Rachel🥥

18,201 subscribers

61,994 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Oyun Bilim & Teknoloji

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

HydraFusion Explained. Part I: How does the Copilot engine know what to optimize for? Your prompt is evaluated across 4 dimensions: ➡ Does it require deep reasoning? (aka. reasoning depth) ➡ Is it a sophisticated problem? (aka. code generation complexity) ➡ Is it untangling a complicated mess? (aka. debugging difficulty) ➡ Is it dominated by tool-use? (aka. tool orchestration needs) Based on this evaluation, a HyDRA score is assigned to determine the capability profile your task needs the most and to establish a quality bar. Part II: How does it choose a model? Note: It doesn' t pick one model to handle the entire job e2e, (that's Auto mode). Instead, it selects 1 of 3 execution workflows and assigns the best model at different stages based on the HyDRA score: 1️⃣ Single ⚙️ How it works: A single model completes the task from start to finish. ⚖️ Rationale: The task comfortably meets the quality bar with one model. Multi-model orchestration would add latency and cost with no meaningful quality gain. 2️⃣ Cascade ⚙️ How it works: A lightweight, cost-efficient model generates the solution. This draft is evaluated against a quality gate and if it falls short of the quality bar, the entire task escalates to a stronger, frontier model. ⚖️ Rationale: Only bring in the big guns when there is concrete evidence that a lightweight model won't meet the quality threshold. 3️⃣ Critique ⚙️ How it works: A lightweight model drafts the initial code and tool interactions. An independent, read-only frontier model reviews that draft and provides feedback. The original lightweight model then performs any targeted revision(s) before the final response is sent to the user. ⚖️ Rationale: Writing code (output tokens) is expensive while reviewing code (input tokens) is cheap. Instead of incurring the cost of a powerhouse writing hundreds of lines from scratch, a cost-efficient model writes the first draft, and the frontier model just reviews it and points out fixes. HydraFusion is available in experimental preview on the GitHub Copilot CLI: /experimental on, /model and select Hydrafusion (Research Preview)

Julia Muiruri

12,687 görüntüleme • 26 gün önce

Routing for long-horizon coding agents is a big deal. Not Diamond just announced a model router that works natively with Claude Code. This is huge. It picks the model and reasoning effort before each turn in a session, runs through a privacy-preserving local proxy, and your requests still execute through your own gateway. In their benchmarks, it approximates Opus 4.8 Xhigh quality at 39 to 61 percent lower cost.

Routing for long-horizon coding agents is a big deal. Not Diamond just announced a model router that works natively with Claude Code. This is huge. It picks the model and reasoning effort before each turn in a session, runs through a privacy-preserving local proxy, and your requests still execute through your own gateway. In their benchmarks, it approximates Opus 4.8 Xhigh quality at 39 to 61 percent lower cost.

elvis

13,699 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

A playable Fortnite took Epic Games 300 people and 6 years. Claude Fable 5 just built one from several sentences. Many people still don't understand how powerful this model really is. We've already seen it build a Minecraft-style game from a single prompt in the browser. This is the next step: a Fortnite-style shooter. Third-person camera, weapon switching, a pickaxe, health and shield bars, a hotbar, buildings scattered across an open map — even the stylized sunset sky. One prompt started it. From there, it writes the code, runs the prototype, sees what breaks, fixes it, and keeps iterating until the thing is actually playable. What makes this interesting isn't that a game can be built. It's how little input is needed to get the process started. A sentence in. A working game out. The gap between an idea and a playable game is closing faster than most people realize.

A playable Fortnite took Epic Games 300 people and 6 years. Claude Fable 5 just built one from several sentences. Many people still don't understand how powerful this model really is. We've already seen it build a Minecraft-style game from a single prompt in the browser. This is the next step: a Fortnite-style shooter. Third-person camera, weapon switching, a pickaxe, health and shield bars, a hotbar, buildings scattered across an open map — even the stylized sunset sky. One prompt started it. From there, it writes the code, runs the prototype, sees what breaks, fixes it, and keeps iterating until the thing is actually playable. What makes this interesting isn't that a game can be built. It's how little input is needed to get the process started. A sentence in. A working game out. The gap between an idea and a playable game is closing faster than most people realize.

Rich

50,249 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Fable 5, first Mythos-class model is live on AI/ML API! We ran a fun test: Opus 4.8 vs Fable 5 are generating a 3D Pokemon. Verdict? Fable 5 is brilliant, fast, and rare as Mew… but Opus is still that nice little guy who does great stuff. 💛 Fable 5 Important bits: SOTA on nearly every benchmark, and the lead only grows on longer, complex tasks. • 1M Context • $10 / 1M input • $50 / 1M output Built for: long-horizon agentic coding, big migrations, vision-to-code, deep research.

Fable 5, first Mythos-class model is live on AI/ML API! We ran a fun test: Opus 4.8 vs Fable 5 are generating a 3D Pokemon. Verdict? Fable 5 is brilliant, fast, and rare as Mew… but Opus is still that nice little guy who does great stuff. 💛 Fable 5 Important bits: SOTA on nearly every benchmark, and the lead only grows on longer, complex tasks. • 1M Context • $10 / 1M input • $50 / 1M output Built for: long-horizon agentic coding, big migrations, vision-to-code, deep research.

AI/ML API

560,710 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

1/ Gemini 2.5 is here, and it’s our most intelligent AI model ever. Our first 2.5 model, Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental is a state-of-the-art thinking model, leading in a wide range of benchmarks – with impressive improvements in enhanced reasoning and coding and now #1 on Arena by a significant margin. With a model this intelligent, we wanted to get it to people as quickly as possible. Find it on Google AI Studio and in the Google Gemini for Gemini Advanced users now – and in Vertex in the coming weeks. This is the start of a new era of thinking models – and we can’t wait to see where things go from here.

1/ Gemini 2.5 is here, and it’s our most intelligent AI model ever. Our first 2.5 model, Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental is a state-of-the-art thinking model, leading in a wide range of benchmarks – with impressive improvements in enhanced reasoning and coding and now #1 on Arena by a significant margin. With a model this intelligent, we wanted to get it to people as quickly as possible. Find it on Google AI Studio and in the Google Gemini for Gemini Advanced users now – and in Vertex in the coming weeks. This is the start of a new era of thinking models – and we can’t wait to see where things go from here.

Sundar Pichai

864,841 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Flappy Bird w/ DeepSeek V4 Pro vs GLM 5.2 vs Fable 5 I ran a small experiment: same game, same prompt, three different models. Test setup was simple: /𝚍𝚎𝚜𝚒𝚐𝚗 in Command Code. The thing I cared about was not UI. UI is now relatively easy for models to imitate. I cared more about UX: whether the model understands the interaction, the flow, the hierarchy, the little product decisions that make something feel usable. 𝙲𝚘𝚜𝚝𝚜: 𝙳𝚎𝚎𝚙𝚂𝚎𝚎𝚔 𝚟𝟺 𝙿𝚛𝚘: $𝟶.𝟶𝟶𝟶𝟾 𝙶𝙻𝙼 𝟻.𝟸: $𝟶.𝟶𝟺𝟾 𝙵𝚊𝚋𝚕𝚎 𝟻: $𝟶.𝟺𝟸 The surprising result was that Fable 5 did not produce a meaningfully better UX. It was good, but not good enough to justify the pricing delta for this kind of design task. Open-source models are getting very interesting here. They are much cheaper, competitive on UI, and increasingly good enough on UX. The gap is closing fast.

Flappy Bird w/ DeepSeek V4 Pro vs GLM 5.2 vs Fable 5 I ran a small experiment: same game, same prompt, three different models. Test setup was simple: /𝚍𝚎𝚜𝚒𝚐𝚗 in Command Code. The thing I cared about was not UI. UI is now relatively easy for models to imitate. I cared more about UX: whether the model understands the interaction, the flow, the hierarchy, the little product decisions that make something feel usable. 𝙲𝚘𝚜𝚝𝚜: 𝙳𝚎𝚎𝚙𝚂𝚎𝚎𝚔 𝚟𝟺 𝙿𝚛𝚘: $𝟶.𝟶𝟶𝟶𝟾 𝙶𝙻𝙼 𝟻.𝟸: $𝟶.𝟶𝟺𝟾 𝙵𝚊𝚋𝚕𝚎 𝟻: $𝟶.𝟺𝟸 The surprising result was that Fable 5 did not produce a meaningfully better UX. It was good, but not good enough to justify the pricing delta for this kind of design task. Open-source models are getting very interesting here. They are much cheaper, competitive on UI, and increasingly good enough on UX. The gap is closing fast.

Ahmad Awais

26,918 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Sonnet 5 is here. It's worse than Opus 4.8 on nearly every benchmark... Does that mean it's useless? Absolutely not. Use it with Claude Code Dynamic Workflows! 1. /model set to Sonnet 5 2. /effort set to Ultracode 3. Any complex task will kick off a dynamic workflow This will only become more powerful when Fable is back. You'll use Fable 5 as the superintelligent advisor and Sonnet 5 as the fast and efficient implementer.

Sonnet 5 is here. It's worse than Opus 4.8 on nearly every benchmark... Does that mean it's useless? Absolutely not. Use it with Claude Code Dynamic Workflows! 1. /model set to Sonnet 5 2. /effort set to Ultracode 3. Any complex task will kick off a dynamic workflow This will only become more powerful when Fable is back. You'll use Fable 5 as the superintelligent advisor and Sonnet 5 as the fast and efficient implementer.

Dan McAteer

666,124 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

the thing you rent for $200 a month just became something you can own for $1,700 once but the money is not even the real story for the first time a 200 billion parameter model is not in a datacenter, it is sitting on a desk the cloud spent years convincing you a model this size needed their servers, their meter, their monthly bill people are stacking four subscriptions into a $440 a month bill to rent what one box this size now owns outright it needed a box the size of a book the moment the model moves from their datacenter to your desk, the whole game changes it stops being about who has the best AI it becomes about who ships it on every desk the cloud told you this needed a datacenter it needed a desk i did the full math on what this kills in the article below

the thing you rent for $200 a month just became something you can own for $1,700 once but the money is not even the real story for the first time a 200 billion parameter model is not in a datacenter, it is sitting on a desk the cloud spent years convincing you a model this size needed their servers, their meter, their monthly bill people are stacking four subscriptions into a $440 a month bill to rent what one box this size now owns outright it needed a box the size of a book the moment the model moves from their datacenter to your desk, the whole game changes it stops being about who has the best AI it becomes about who ships it on every desk the cloud told you this needed a datacenter it needed a desk i did the full math on what this kills in the article below

John Doe

26,226 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

what if the robot could test its next move before the real arm moves? this setup already shows the first step: a 3D model follows the physical arm on screen right now, the model shows what the robot is doing the next step would be letting it test a movement in software before sending it to the real arm the ESP32 guide covers the practical side: sensors, filtering and turning movement into actions follow for more builds where small boards make physical things move

what if the robot could test its next move before the real arm moves? this setup already shows the first step: a 3D model follows the physical arm on screen right now, the model shows what the robot is doing the next step would be letting it test a movement in software before sending it to the real arm the ESP32 guide covers the practical side: sensors, filtering and turning movement into actions follow for more builds where small boards make physical things move

ard

33,298 görüntüleme • 15 gün önce

PAYING PER MODEL IS THE DUMBEST THING IN TECH RIGHT NOW i was paying 3x what i needed to for AI inference the grid lets you buy a quality spec instead of a specific model.. it routes every request in real time to the cheapest option that qualifies swap one url and your code keeps working exactly the same openai-compatible, one line to switch, 200M free tokens to start

PAYING PER MODEL IS THE DUMBEST THING IN TECH RIGHT NOW i was paying 3x what i needed to for AI inference the grid lets you buy a quality spec instead of a specific model.. it routes every request in real time to the cheapest option that qualifies swap one url and your code keeps working exactly the same openai-compatible, one line to switch, 200M free tokens to start

Robin Delta

15,729 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

You've probably scrolled past a dozen posts about Jev this week without anyone telling you what it actually is. It's the first model from TypeSafe, a lab started by one of the researchers behind ChatGPT. It's a decision engine: you give it options, it picks one and tells you how sure it is. It cannot write a single word, and that is the interesting part. Every other AI you use writes. That is the whole interface. So when software needs a plain yes or no, we make a model write a paragraph and then dig the answer back out of it. Fine in a chat window where a human reads it. Bad inside software, where code has to act on it. The bet is that the valuable half was never the writing. It was the deciding. That problem showed up in WordPress years ago, and it is the reason WPVibe works the way it does. The AI does the work. Anything permanent stops and waits, because a delete that skips the trash is not something software should decide on its own.

You've probably scrolled past a dozen posts about Jev this week without anyone telling you what it actually is. It's the first model from TypeSafe, a lab started by one of the researchers behind ChatGPT. It's a decision engine: you give it options, it picks one and tells you how sure it is. It cannot write a single word, and that is the interesting part. Every other AI you use writes. That is the whole interface. So when software needs a plain yes or no, we make a model write a paragraph and then dig the answer back out of it. Fine in a chat window where a human reads it. Bad inside software, where code has to act on it. The bet is that the valuable half was never the writing. It was the deciding. That problem showed up in WordPress years ago, and it is the reason WPVibe works the way it does. The AI does the work. Anything permanent stops and waits, because a delete that skips the trash is not something software should decide on its own.

John Turner

21,029 görüntüleme • 17 gün önce

a moonshot engineer leaked the benchmark anthropic, openai and xai all buried the same week: kimi k3 beat opus 5, gpt-5.6 and grok 4.6 at $0.94 a task. stop paying anthropic $200 a month for opus 5 and openai $200 for gpt-5.6 when kimi does the same work for $8 the leak showed kimi k3 winning 9 of 12 categories against opus 5, gpt-5.6 and grok 4.6. within 48 hours all three labs quietly pushed pricing pages and one very specific comparison chart off their sites. nobody announced anything. they just deleted, which tells you everything the four numbers they scrubbed: cost per task · $0.94 vs $1.80 -> opus 5 charges $1.80 to finish one task. gpt-5.6 $1.04. grok 4.6 $0.61. kimi k3 $0.94 and it landed 487 of 500 clean -> anthropic is billing you double for a model that lost the benchmark it paid to promote the weights · free, sitting on huggingface right now -> the entire model is a public download. pull it, keep it, run it forever, nobody can switch it off -> a model you can hold cannot be rented at $200 a month. that single fact is what three labs deleted a chart over the switch · one line of bash -> moonshot ships an anthropic-compatible endpoint. one env variable and claude code points at kimi -> same cli, same keybindings, same /model. you change a url, opus 5 never knows it lost the seat the bill · $400 down to $8 -> opus 5 max plus gpt-5.6 pro is $400 a month. kimi runs the same daily work for $8 metered -> that is a 98% cut for output that beat both of them 9 categories to 3 here is the part they will fight me on: the frontier tax died the week this leaked and all three labs know it. once the weights are public the price has a ceiling, because anyone can serve the same model. anthropic, openai and xai are charging 2025 prices on a lead that ended in a benchmark they deleted instead of answered drop your $400/mo ai stack to $8. the run above is kimi k3 finishing the task opus 5 bills $1.80 for. the full breakdown is in the article below

a moonshot engineer leaked the benchmark anthropic, openai and xai all buried the same week: kimi k3 beat opus 5, gpt-5.6 and grok 4.6 at $0.94 a task. stop paying anthropic $200 a month for opus 5 and openai $200 for gpt-5.6 when kimi does the same work for $8 the leak showed kimi k3 winning 9 of 12 categories against opus 5, gpt-5.6 and grok 4.6. within 48 hours all three labs quietly pushed pricing pages and one very specific comparison chart off their sites. nobody announced anything. they just deleted, which tells you everything the four numbers they scrubbed: cost per task · $0.94 vs $1.80 -> opus 5 charges $1.80 to finish one task. gpt-5.6 $1.04. grok 4.6 $0.61. kimi k3 $0.94 and it landed 487 of 500 clean -> anthropic is billing you double for a model that lost the benchmark it paid to promote the weights · free, sitting on huggingface right now -> the entire model is a public download. pull it, keep it, run it forever, nobody can switch it off -> a model you can hold cannot be rented at $200 a month. that single fact is what three labs deleted a chart over the switch · one line of bash -> moonshot ships an anthropic-compatible endpoint. one env variable and claude code points at kimi -> same cli, same keybindings, same /model. you change a url, opus 5 never knows it lost the seat the bill · $400 down to $8 -> opus 5 max plus gpt-5.6 pro is $400 a month. kimi runs the same daily work for $8 metered -> that is a 98% cut for output that beat both of them 9 categories to 3 here is the part they will fight me on: the frontier tax died the week this leaked and all three labs know it. once the weights are public the price has a ceiling, because anyone can serve the same model. anthropic, openai and xai are charging 2025 prices on a lead that ended in a benchmark they deleted instead of answered drop your $400/mo ai stack to $8. the run above is kimi k3 finishing the task opus 5 bills $1.80 for. the full breakdown is in the article below

starmex

33,133 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

not sure why nobody is talking about this but Google Omni is insane at video editing Original Video (left) vs Omni Edited Video (right) everyone is comparing it to Seedance and missing the point completely. Seedance is for generating videos from scratch. Google Omni is for editing videos that already exist. which are two completely different use cases this is like when Nano Banana 1 first came out and nobody realized how big it was going to be. this is the first AI that can actually properly edit videos.. i've generated a few hundred videos with this model and it can do literally any type of edit you can think of. changing voices, swapping characters, removing watermarks, adding captions, transitions, pop ups, whatever. if you can describe the edit you want it can do it this completely crushes every other model on the market when it comes to video editing. nothing else even comes close right now and this is just the flash model. imagine what the pro version is going to be able to do when it drops in a couple months this should have way more hype than it's getting..

not sure why nobody is talking about this but Google Omni is insane at video editing Original Video (left) vs Omni Edited Video (right) everyone is comparing it to Seedance and missing the point completely. Seedance is for generating videos from scratch. Google Omni is for editing videos that already exist. which are two completely different use cases this is like when Nano Banana 1 first came out and nobody realized how big it was going to be. this is the first AI that can actually properly edit videos.. i've generated a few hundred videos with this model and it can do literally any type of edit you can think of. changing voices, swapping characters, removing watermarks, adding captions, transitions, pop ups, whatever. if you can describe the edit you want it can do it this completely crushes every other model on the market when it comes to video editing. nothing else even comes close right now and this is just the flash model. imagine what the pro version is going to be able to do when it drops in a couple months this should have way more hype than it's getting..

Miko

30,156 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Most video tools can generate clips. Very few can maintain identity. That has been the real bottleneck in AI video creation. Kling O1 changes that. For the first time, creators can carry a character, style, and visual language across scenes without constant fixes. You can reference past clips, assets, or images and the output stays consistently on-model. No visual drift. No rework loops. No “this doesn’t look like the last shot” moments. It feels less like prompting a tool and more like working with a creative collaborator that remembers context. The impact is practical, not theoretical: → Faster production cycles → Lower iteration costs → Noticeably higher output quality This is what mature AI tooling looks like. Not louder features. Not bigger claims. Just reliability where it actually matters. Consistency is no longer the problem.

Most video tools can generate clips. Very few can maintain identity. That has been the real bottleneck in AI video creation. Kling O1 changes that. For the first time, creators can carry a character, style, and visual language across scenes without constant fixes. You can reference past clips, assets, or images and the output stays consistently on-model. No visual drift. No rework loops. No “this doesn’t look like the last shot” moments. It feels less like prompting a tool and more like working with a creative collaborator that remembers context. The impact is practical, not theoretical: → Faster production cycles → Lower iteration costs → Noticeably higher output quality This is what mature AI tooling looks like. Not louder features. Not bigger claims. Just reliability where it actually matters. Consistency is no longer the problem.

Darshal Jaitwar

141,038 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

Sora 2, “ family guy dark humor” My personal thoughts: This is clearly the best AI video model for replicating animated shows. This truly gives credence to the fact that within the decade AI generated short films/shows is looking like a real possibility. My important caveats. Model trained only on video can get visually indistinguishable for most viewers most of the time. It can match texture, lighting, motion, and camera language so well that only careful inspection gives it away. However For sustained quality at the level of a full scene or an episode, video alone hits a ceiling IMO. Pure video likelihood drives the model toward what is frequent, not toward the rare timing and payoff choices that make the best jokes land. It has weak grasp of long arc causality, character memory, and joke structure. It also does not see intent, off screen context, or prosody unless you give it those signals. So you get something that looks right but drifts on beats that matter. I don’t know what the potential solution would be other than to have an AGI just animate the show for me. Any others ? Credit for the sora clip: figure

Sora 2, “ family guy dark humor” My personal thoughts: This is clearly the best AI video model for replicating animated shows. This truly gives credence to the fact that within the decade AI generated short films/shows is looking like a real possibility. My important caveats. Model trained only on video can get visually indistinguishable for most viewers most of the time. It can match texture, lighting, motion, and camera language so well that only careful inspection gives it away. However For sustained quality at the level of a full scene or an episode, video alone hits a ceiling IMO. Pure video likelihood drives the model toward what is frequent, not toward the rare timing and payoff choices that make the best jokes land. It has weak grasp of long arc causality, character memory, and joke structure. It also does not see intent, off screen context, or prosody unless you give it those signals. So you get something that looks right but drifts on beats that matter. I don’t know what the potential solution would be other than to have an AGI just animate the show for me. Any others ? Credit for the sora clip: figure

Chris

150,286 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Let me explain the agent loop, simple It's the core of every agentic system, and the part most people overcomplicate It's just this: 1. Send messages to the model 2. Model responds, maybe calls a tool 3. You run the tool 4. Append the result back to messages 5. Repeat until stop_reason is end_turn Step 4 is the whole thing, the write-back is what makes it an agent The model has to see what actually happened before it decides the next move That's the entire loop... understand this cold before you reach for a framework

Let me explain the agent loop, simple It's the core of every agentic system, and the part most people overcomplicate It's just this: 1. Send messages to the model 2. Model responds, maybe calls a tool 3. You run the tool 4. Append the result back to messages 5. Repeat until stop_reason is end_turn Step 4 is the whole thing, the write-back is what makes it an agent The model has to see what actually happened before it decides the next move That's the entire loop... understand this cold before you reach for a framework

Daniel San

12,514 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Claude Fable 5 orchestrating Grok 4.5 is now my favorite real workflow. all you need is this free Claude Code plugin that makes Grok the default implementer. Fable writes the specs and reviews every diff, Grok 4.5 does the typing through the Grok CLI. - Grok handles the volume, Fable handles the judgment - Every diff gets cross-vendor review for free - Specs run as parallel agents when they're independent I've been testing it for a few days and the part that sold me is watching Fable refuse to write code. It sends specs down, judges what comes back, and that's it. setup: 1. claude plugin marketplace add DannyMac180/fable-advisor && claude plugin install fable-advisor 2. Install the Grok CLI from then grok login 3. /model fable It's open source, so you can read the agent files and tweak the routing however you want.

Claude Fable 5 orchestrating Grok 4.5 is now my favorite real workflow. all you need is this free Claude Code plugin that makes Grok the default implementer. Fable writes the specs and reviews every diff, Grok 4.5 does the typing through the Grok CLI. - Grok handles the volume, Fable handles the judgment - Every diff gets cross-vendor review for free - Specs run as parallel agents when they're independent I've been testing it for a few days and the part that sold me is watching Fable refuse to write code. It sends specs down, judges what comes back, and that's it. setup: 1. claude plugin marketplace add DannyMac180/fable-advisor && claude plugin install fable-advisor 2. Install the Grok CLI from then grok login 3. /model fable It's open source, so you can read the agent files and tweak the routing however you want.

Alvaro Cintas

100,804 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce