Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Fable 5.5 its over for video and image models 🤯 THIS IS PURE CODE one shotted this video holy shit , how this is more beautiful than ai video models Two ways to check this yourself: Ask: “Where did Andrej Karpathy go in 2026?” with web search and memory...

347,262 görüntüleme • 6 saat önce •via X (Twitter)

43 Yorum

Chetaslua profil fotoğrafı
Chetaslua6 saat önce

code for review : Prompt : Create a 2D anime scene for the web. It must look completely like real Japanese anime, as if it were taken directly from a finished theatrical anime film. This is traditional-looking, hand-drawn 2D anime, not a 3D animation, a moving illustration, or a stylized web graphic. Deliver the final result as a single, self-contained HTML file. Use any tools, libraries, references, guides, literally anything etc. Use Studio Ghibli films as the art style reference for the design, line work, painted backgrounds, color, and atmosphere. Create an original giant robot as the main character. No people appear in the scene. Use any tools or techniques you want, including 3D, as long as the final result looks 100% like hand-drawn 2D anime. SCENE At sunrise, mist hangs over an abandoned forest. A giant robot has knelt here for so long that moss, wildflowers, and old trees have grown over its body. A small bird lands on its shoulder as the first ray of sunlight reaches its weathered face. Deep inside its chest, a faint light flickers on. The ground trembles and birds burst from the treetops. With a deep, creaking groan, the robot slowly rises as soil, vines, and leaves pour from its armor. It lifts its head toward a gap in the canopy. The engines ignite, sending a great ring of wind across the forest. The robot tears into the golden sky, leaving a curving trail of light and mist as leaves spiral down through the sunbeams. ANIME QUALITY STANDARD Every frame must look as if it was drawn by professional anime animators and painted by master background artists for a finished theatrical film. Robot: A hand-drawn anime mecha that feels heavy, ancient, and full of personality, with cel-colored forms, chipped paint, rust, moss, and believable weathering. Keep it on-model from every angle, and let its posture and glowing eyes express emotion. Line art: Confident, delicate, hand-inked anime line work with subtle variation in thickness and pressure. Coloring: Traditional anime cel coloring with clean color areas, simple hard-edged shadows, and a soft, natural palette. Backgrounds: Richly detailed, hand-painted anime backgrounds in a gouache style, with visible brushwork, natural color variation, layered foliage, and real depth. Lighting: Golden sunrise light, colorful shadows, glowing mist, and soft atmosphere that unite the robot and background. Animation: Authentic hand-drawn anime timing with real weight, strong key poses, natural holds, and overlapping movement in vines, grass, leaves, birds, and falling debris. The robot should rise slowly and feel massive, then launch with explosive power. Direction: Cinematic anime shots, beautiful composition, thoughtful staging, and pacing that starts quietly, builds tension, and ends in a soaring climax. IT MUST NOT LOOK LIKE - 3D: No plastic materials, CGI shading, visible polygons, game-engine lighting, or computer-perfect perspective. - SVG or vector art: No simple geometric shapes, perfect curves, uniform outlines, flat corporate illustration, or basic gradients. - Web animation: No sliding layers, constant bobbing, floating parts, smooth software easing, or puppet-like joint rotation. You are free to change any part of the prompt, if it would result, in better results. - AI art: No warped shapes, melted details, flickering, or changing robot designs. - Non-anime art: No Western cartoon designs, realistic rendering, soft painterly shading on the robot, or generic digital illustration. - Amateur work: No stiff poses, empty backgrounds, repeated trees, muddy colors, clip art, placeholders, or unfinished details. The result should feel awe-inspiring, nostalgic, and full of wonder, like the moment an old forgotten dream comes back to life. Before finishing, inspect random frames as still images. If any frame does not look completely like real 2D anime, keep improving it. Do not stop until every frame could pass as a still from a theatrical anime film.

Chetaslua profil fotoğrafı
Chetaslua6 saat önce

fully coded no external assets used and for all of you it made html code block as asked

Chetaslua profil fotoğrafı
Chetaslua6 saat önce

thanks tuskedfriend for the work

J A Z I I profil fotoğrafı
J A Z I I6 saat önce

@karpathy brooo wtfff. this is whole ass animation

Chetaslua profil fotoğrafı
Chetaslua6 saat önce

@karpathy its over , 6 more months and nobody will care about new video or image model

Ozan profil fotoğrafı
Ozan6 saat önce

@karpathy What is this!? That's crazy good! It's coming to destroy artists.

J A Z I I profil fotoğrafı
J A Z I I6 saat önce

@karpathy OMG this looks so good

Chetaslua profil fotoğrafı
Chetaslua6 saat önce

@karpathy we are so back

Shawn profil fotoğrafı
Shawn6 saat önce

@karpathy is the new Fable public, or a test build somewhere?

Jesus is God ✝︎ profil fotoğrafı
Jesus is God ✝︎6 saat önce

@karpathy Great post, might be one of your best

Prakhar Aggarwal profil fotoğrafı
Prakhar Aggarwal5 saat önce

@karpathy Holy sick 🤯

Olezhka profil fotoğrafı
Olezhka6 saat önce

@karpathy Getting that level of volumetric clouds and pixel shading one-shot is unreal

Ion profil fotoğrafı
Ion6 saat önce

@karpathy What the hell 😳

Moonlit Monkey profil fotoğrafı
Moonlit Monkey5 saat önce

@karpathy Feels like a sensory lobotomy.

馒头不是程序员 profil fotoğrafı
馒头不是程序员5 saat önce

@karpathy 纯粹的代码一击必杀,这个形容很到位,比AI视频模型还美就说明代码本身的表达力被低估了,关键是这种美是能直接跑起来的,不是光好看。

dragon profil fotoğrafı
dragon6 saat önce

@karpathy It's too exaggerated

Ter profil fotoğrafı
Ter6 saat önce

@karpathy Golden age has arrived

마피 | マフィ | Mafi profil fotoğrafı
마피 | マフィ | Mafi5 saat önce

@karpathy Fully coded??

Unama Madita | Building with AI profil fotoğrafı
Unama Madita | Building with AI6 saat önce

@karpathy Wtf

Aditya Batra profil fotoğrafı
Aditya Batra5 saat önce

@karpathy thats a 48mb mp4 in a trenchcoat bro, readme says the film is base64 and theres like 9kb of actual code

saietta profil fotoğrafı
saietta5 saat önce

@karpathy opus 5.5 did this for me too, a 41 sec promo video for a product i built, all code. i ran it in the same claude code session where i built the product so it already knew every screen, i only asked for a few visual fixes

jimmi profil fotoğrafı
jimmi6 saat önce

@karpathy This is really cool, but it's not as good as what video models can produce. To me it really undermines your credibility and comes across as a lack of taste on your part to state otherwise. Not trying to be mean, you seem like a cool dude, just a little too much hype for me.

Jubayar Adnan profil fotoğrafı
Jubayar Adnan5 saat önce

@karpathy Video was so Amazing 😱

Eric profil fotoğrafı
Eric6 saat önce

@karpathy I wish that you recreate all these prompts when the model is released to confirm if the expectations are correct

AI Adventurer profil fotoğrafı
AI Adventurer6 saat önce

@karpathy for anyone opening the repo: index.html carries the film as a ~36 MB base64 MP4 (H.264, 1920x1040, 80 s) decoded into a Blob at load, and the only live canvas is the grain overlay. is the code that rendered the frames going up too?

Edgex profil fotoğrafı
Edgex5 saat önce

@karpathy Totally agree, Grok can’t keep up on niche stuff. Fable’s code‑only approach is a game changer for this kind of reasoning

HandlyTech profil fotoğrafı
HandlyTech5 saat önce

@karpathy video models have died more times than my tamagotchi

Freedom | AI profil fotoğrafı
Freedom | AI5 saat önce

"Over for video models" is a stretch, honestly. Totally different tools. The cool part with code is every frame is computed: the robot never melts or morphs, and if you want a different shot you just tweak a number and re-run. Video models can't touch that. But you can see the limits too. The takeoff smoke is pretty obviously a few stacked sprites. Curious though: were those painterly assets drawn in code, or just loaded images? Kinda decides how "pure code" this really is.

Chetaslua profil fotoğrafı
Chetaslua5 saat önce

@karpathy its not loaded images that for sure

Furkan Ceyran profil fotoğrafı
Furkan Ceyran6 saat önce

@karpathy Video modelleriyle anime oluşturmaya ne zaman başlayacağız derken ne kadar vizyonsuzmuşum 🤦

Minto profil fotoğrafı
Minto6 saat önce

@karpathy A clean one-shot is the easy number to show off. I'd care more about whether the tenth rerun looks like the first, since consistency across attempts is usually where video models fall apart.

Arbaz profil fotoğrafı
Arbaz6 saat önce

@karpathy shot or the best of ten one shots?

Friendly Lootera profil fotoğrafı
Friendly Lootera5 saat önce

@karpathy Giving studio Ghibli vibes

CDG profil fotoğrafı
CDG5 saat önce

@karpathy damnn bruh ts looks so good!

zhod profil fotoğrafı
zhod6 saat önce

@karpathy This is cleannn

BubbleBrain profil fotoğrafı
BubbleBrain6 saat önce

@karpathy this looks incredible!

ccod profil fotoğrafı
ccod5 saat önce

@karpathy one shot of pure code and it looks better than my video models tenth try

AI Fine Print profil fotoğrafı
AI Fine Print5 saat önce

@karpathy Oh my. If this really turns out to be what they ship as Fable 5.5 then the leap in capabilities is insane. Not saying we should all use it as a video model, but the reasoning and detail behind creating this shows a badass capable model.

İcarus#HλlfLifeBekliyor profil fotoğrafı
İcarus#HλlfLifeBekliyor6 saat önce

@karpathy İmpressive i like to see someone do animation with it to see its performance

Louis LAURENT profil fotoğrafı
Louis LAURENT6 saat önce

@karpathy chetas please use it for motion design ull make millions of views

Chetaslua profil fotoğrafı
Chetaslua6 saat önce

@karpathy like

Louis LAURENT profil fotoğrafı
Louis LAURENT6 saat önce

@karpathy :)

Louis LAURENT profil fotoğrafı
Louis LAURENT6 saat önce

@karpathy 1. recreating oai video launch 2. full motion like recreate a well known launch video

Benzer Videolar

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

48,964 görüntüleme • 29 gün önce

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

44,284 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

GPT-5.6 vs GPT-5.5 on my custom spaceship prompt. I gave both models the exact same custom prompt. This is also the same prompt I previously gave to Fable 5. For context, GPT-5.6 Pro worked for 87 minutes, while GPT-5.5 Extra High worked for 34 minutes and 42 seconds. As I’ve said before, based on great authority GPT-5.6 will be an incremental/soldi improvement over GPT-5.5, not a “Fable killer.” My rough expectation has been that it would trade blows with Fable 5 on some benchmarks, maybe win around half depending on the category, but not clearly surpass it overall. And again fable five will have bigger model smell, but this was expected. After testing this coding output, that view feels pretty accurate. GPT-5.6 is clearly better than GPT-5.5 in several visual areas. The lighting, shading, chairs, object details, and exterior of the spaceship looked noticeably stronger. The scene was also easier to test. I do want to give GPT-5.5 credit though. It built out the rooms much much better and the planets looked better than GPT-5.6’s. It was also interesting that both GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.6 produced better-looking planets than Fable 5 in this specific test. The downside with GPT-5.5 was stability. The game was much glitchier and harder to test compared to GPT-5.6. But when it comes to the core of the demo, which is the spaceship itself, Fable 5 still beat both models pretty comfortably. GPT-5.6 is impressive, but from this test, it looks exactly like what I expected which was a meaningful incremental improvement over GPT-5.5, at least for indie game demos, but not something that replaces Fable 5. In collaboration with Chetaslua

Chris

250,919 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

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

424,860 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

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: → 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. 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 - 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 medium > 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: opus, 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." ↳

delost

700,126 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Claude Code tip: once Opus 5.5 runs your main session, stop leaving Fable 5.1 on the bench put it on call with /advisor run /advisor fable Opus 5.5 keeps writing the code Fable 5.1 reads the whole session, every tool call included, and only speaks up at three moments: → 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. 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 - 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 medium > 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: opus, 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." ↳

Hanako

52,065 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

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

327,334 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

I don't understand why everyone isn't doing this yet. Anthropic's own Claude Code docs show how to run a whole team of Claudes, while Opus 5.5 only touches the plan and the merge the whole idea: agent teams in Claude Code one lead, separate teammates in their own context windows, one shared task list, and they message each other directly the lead: Opus 5.5 on high, splits the work, writes the tasks, merges at the end the builders: Sonnet 5.5, one owns client/, one owns api/, never the same file the adversary: Fable 5.1, never writes code, only shows up at three points: → before an interface locks: do both sides agree on the contract? → when a test fails twice: is it fixed or just hidden? → before a task is marked done: what breaks it? Sonnet 5.5 builds. Fable 5.1 attacks. Opus 5.5 merges 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 team only argues about the ones that split turn it on, then start the team in plain English: "Spawn three teammates: ux and backend on Sonnet, an adversary on Fable" - the full team > Opus 5.5 on high leads the session > ux on Sonnet 5.5, owns client/ > backend on Sonnet 5.5, owns api/ > adversary on Fable 5.1, owns nothing, reviews everything > shared task list with file locking, direct messages, no lead in the middle paste the team and this prompt into Claude Code ↓ "Set up agent teams for this repo: 1. In ~/.claude/settings.json add CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS=1 under env and set effortLevel to high 2. In ~/.claude/agents, draft three subagent definitions for the teammates > ux and backend with model: sonnet, each limited to its own folder > adversary with model: fable and read-only tools, whose only job is attacking contracts, repeated test failures and done claims > Skip any that already exist and list them 3. Add a TaskCompleted hook that blocks completion until the adversary signs off, and one rule to CLAUDE.md: no two teammates edit the same file 4. Find anything that would override this (CLAUDE_CODE_SUBAGENT_MODEL, CLAUDE_CODE_SUBAGENT_MODEL_FORCE, CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL). Report it, change nothing Show me every change as a diff first. No edits until I say go." ↳

delost

71,067 görüntüleme • 28 gün önce

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

57,940 görüntüleme • 25 gün önce

This is f*cking insane. This tip saved me thousands of dollars. run Opus 5.5, Sonnet 5.5, and Fable 5.1 together, and stop burning Opus on work it was never needed for. the whole idea in one line: the strong model plans, the mid-tier model executes, Fable stays quiet until it's actually needed. roles, broken down: Opus 5.5, high effort, owns the plan and ships the final code Sonnet 5.5, medium effort, splits into explorer (reads the codebase), worker (edits files, runs tests), researcher (pulls docs) Fable 5.1, called through /advisor fable, reads everything happening in the session but stays silent unless something's actually wrong three moments where Fable speaks: → a plan goes out: is this actually the right call? → the same failure shows up again: is the search going nowhere? → the task gets marked finished: did something get skipped? Jev engineering does the same thing one level down. the forks that don't need real thought, which file, which tool, keep going or stop, go straight to Jev and come back in under half a second. the big models only ever see the forks that genuinely need a decision. anyone still running one model for everything is paying Opus prices to decide whether a file exists. drop this into Claude Code: "Rebuild my Claude Code setup around this structure: 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: sonnet, effort: medium on each. If an existing subagent is locked to a different model, leave it as is and just list it. In ~/.claude/settings.json, set effortLevel to high and advisorModel to fable. Check for anything disabling the advisor, CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADVISOR_TOOL, DISABLE_TELEMETRY, or anything blocking feature-flag fetches, plus CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL, which can override subagent effort settings. Report what you find. Don't change any of it yet. Add one line to ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md: check in with 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."

rvaniaaa

254,899 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

This is f*cking insane. I spent thousands of dollars before I split my work across three models put Opus 5.5 on the plan, Sonnet 5.5 on the legwork and Fable 5.1 on call, and you stop spending Opus money on jobs it was never needed for who does what: Opus 5.5, high effort: makes the plan and owns the final diff Sonnet 5.5, medium effort, three jobs: explorer reads the code, worker edits files and runs tests, researcher pulls the docs Fable 5.1, through /advisor fable: reads the whole session, but only when it gets called Fable is consulted at three points: → before a plan ships: is this the right approach? → when an error comes back twice: is the search stuck in the wrong place? → before a long task counts as done: what got missed? Jev engineering applies the same split to the smallest decisions. which file to open, which tool to run, retry or stop need no reasoning, so Jev answers them in under half a second and the big models only get the real forks run Opus on everything and you pay it to check whether a file exists paste this into Claude Code: "Rebuild my Claude Code setup around three tiers. Look in ~/.claude/agents and .claude/agents for subagents that already cover explorer, worker and researcher. Create only the missing ones, each with model: sonnet and effort: medium. If an existing one is pinned to another model, list it and leave it alone. In ~/.claude/settings.json, set advisorModel to fable. Set high effort for Opus inside modelSettings for claude-opus-5-5, because a top-level effortLevel does not apply to Opus 5.5. Report, without changing anything: CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADVISOR_TOOL, DISABLE_TELEMETRY or anything blocking feature-flag fetches, CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL, which can override subagent effort, and whether Fable as advisor needs a one-time billing consent. If you can't tell, say so. 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. Touch nothing until I say go."

Ryven

48,939 görüntüleme • 25 gün önce