正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

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." ↳show more

delost

4,057 subscribers

69,178 次观看 • 4 天前 •via X (Twitter)

教育科学技术

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

4 条评论

Jadu 👐 的头像

Jadu 👐4 天前

the adversary staying review-only is the cleanest bit here lol

1Broom 的头像

1Broom4 天前

Giving the critic zero authorship is the smart call. A reviewer that didn't write a line has no ego tied up in the result, so it actually goes looking for the crack.

Martin Ronfort 的头像

Martin Ronfort4 天前

We actually went deeper on how agents can manage complex workflows like this here:

catman 的头像

catman4 天前

It’s like parallel work with a code reviewer at the gates: separate ownership speeds implementation, while adversarial checks catch contract and test failures before merge.

相关视频

Claude Code tip: stop burning Opus 5.5 context on tasks Sonnet 5.5 can swarm, while Fable 5.1 sits idle spin up an autonomous team with --agent claude --agent architect Opus 5.5 acts as the lead architect, scoping the work and validating every worktree before it merges Sonnet 5.5 teammates take isolated git worktrees and hammer out implementations at medium effort Fable 5.1 sits on the team as a dedicated adversary, only stepping in at three critical moments: → before a contract locks: does the frontend payload match the backend schema? → when a test breaks twice: are we patching the bug or just hiding the symptom? → before the merge: what attack surface or edge case did everyone overlook? Sonnet 5.5 builds. Fable 5.1 challenges. Opus 5.5 merges and ships Jev engineering runs the identical pattern one layer down: mechanical decisions that need no reasoning (which file to open, which tool to invoke, retry or abort) execute in 16ms, so the frontier models only wake up when execution paths actually diverge Plan on high. Delegate on medium. Keep the adversary on peer-to-peer call. - the full team setup > architect runs the main session on Opus 5.5 at high effort > teammate-ux builds client state inside its own git worktree > teammate-back writes endpoints and migrations inside a separate worktree > teammate-adv runs on Fable 5.1, read-only, and attacks every diff > teammates message each other by name without routing through the lead > tools: Agent(ux, backend, adversary) locks the architect to spawning only its own team paste the setup and this prompt into Claude Code below: "Configure my Claude Code workspace for an autonomous agent team: 1. Audit ~/.claude/agents and .claude/agents for definitions fitting architect, ux, backend and adversary > Generate definitions only for missing roles > Pin model: sonnet, effort: medium, isolation: worktree for ux and backend, and model: fable with read-only tools for adversary > Give architect model: opus, effort: high and tools: Agent(ux, backend, adversary) 2. Check ~/.claude/settings.json and my env: > Report CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS if it's set, since it turns named subagents into teammates without worktrees > Report CLAUDE_CODE_SUBAGENT_MODEL_FORCE and CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL, which can override the pinned models and effort 3. Write each role's prompt so ux and backend own separate folders, message each other by name when a contract changes, and hand every diff to adversary before reporting back 4. Add a team rule to ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md: no worktree merges until adversary has reviewed it Show every configuration diff first. Do not apply edits until confirmed" save it

Claude Code tip: stop burning Opus 5.5 context on tasks Sonnet 5.5 can swarm, while Fable 5.1 sits idle spin up an autonomous team with --agent claude --agent architect Opus 5.5 acts as the lead architect, scoping the work and validating every worktree before it merges Sonnet 5.5 teammates take isolated git worktrees and hammer out implementations at medium effort Fable 5.1 sits on the team as a dedicated adversary, only stepping in at three critical moments: → before a contract locks: does the frontend payload match the backend schema? → when a test breaks twice: are we patching the bug or just hiding the symptom? → before the merge: what attack surface or edge case did everyone overlook? Sonnet 5.5 builds. Fable 5.1 challenges. Opus 5.5 merges and ships Jev engineering runs the identical pattern one layer down: mechanical decisions that need no reasoning (which file to open, which tool to invoke, retry or abort) execute in 16ms, so the frontier models only wake up when execution paths actually diverge Plan on high. Delegate on medium. Keep the adversary on peer-to-peer call. - the full team setup > architect runs the main session on Opus 5.5 at high effort > teammate-ux builds client state inside its own git worktree > teammate-back writes endpoints and migrations inside a separate worktree > teammate-adv runs on Fable 5.1, read-only, and attacks every diff > teammates message each other by name without routing through the lead > tools: Agent(ux, backend, adversary) locks the architect to spawning only its own team paste the setup and this prompt into Claude Code below: "Configure my Claude Code workspace for an autonomous agent team: 1. Audit ~/.claude/agents and .claude/agents for definitions fitting architect, ux, backend and adversary > Generate definitions only for missing roles > Pin model: sonnet, effort: medium, isolation: worktree for ux and backend, and model: fable with read-only tools for adversary > Give architect model: opus, effort: high and tools: Agent(ux, backend, adversary) 2. Check ~/.claude/settings.json and my env: > Report CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS if it's set, since it turns named subagents into teammates without worktrees > Report CLAUDE_CODE_SUBAGENT_MODEL_FORCE and CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL, which can override the pinned models and effort 3. Write each role's prompt so ux and backend own separate folders, message each other by name when a contract changes, and hand every diff to adversary before reporting back 4. Add a team rule to ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md: no worktree merges until adversary has reviewed it Show every configuration diff first. Do not apply edits until confirmed" save it

Khairallah AL-Awady

32,018 次观看 • 2 天前

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

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

delost

48,238 次观看 • 5 天前

Claude Code tip, and it's absolute free f*cking gold: run Opus 5.5, Sonnet 5.5 and Fable 5.1 as one team and stop burning Opus tokens on routine work the setup in one line: plan on high, delegate on medium, keep Fable on call • who does what > Opus 5.5 on high - plans and ships the code > Sonnet 5.5 on medium - explorer reads code, worker edits and runs tests, researcher pulls docs > Fable 5.1 via /advisor fable - reads the whole session and speaks up only when it matters • when Fable 5.1 steps in -> before a plan: is this the right approach? -> when an error repeats: am I digging in the wrong place? -> before "done": what did I miss? Jev engineering takes it one layer lower: which file, which tool, retry or stop all go to Jev in under half a second, so the big models only see the real forks paste this into Claude Code ↓ "Rebuild my Claude Code setup: 1. Find subagents in ~/.claude/agents and .claude/agents that fit explorer, worker and researcher. Draft only the missing ones. Set each to model: sonnet, effort: medium. List any that pin a different model and leave them 2. In ~/.claude/settings.json set effortLevel to high and advisorModel to fable. 3. Report anything that disables the advisor (CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADVISOR_TOOL, DISABLE_TELEMETRY, flag-fetching blockers) and CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL. Change nothing. 4. Add to ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md: consult the advisor before a large plan, when an error repeats, and before calling a long task done. Show every change as a diff. No edits until I say go." ↳

Claude Code tip, and it's absolute free f*cking gold: run Opus 5.5, Sonnet 5.5 and Fable 5.1 as one team and stop burning Opus tokens on routine work the setup in one line: plan on high, delegate on medium, keep Fable on call • who does what > Opus 5.5 on high - plans and ships the code > Sonnet 5.5 on medium - explorer reads code, worker edits and runs tests, researcher pulls docs > Fable 5.1 via /advisor fable - reads the whole session and speaks up only when it matters • when Fable 5.1 steps in -> before a plan: is this the right approach? -> when an error repeats: am I digging in the wrong place? -> before "done": what did I miss? Jev engineering takes it one layer lower: which file, which tool, retry or stop all go to Jev in under half a second, so the big models only see the real forks paste this into Claude Code ↓ "Rebuild my Claude Code setup: 1. Find subagents in ~/.claude/agents and .claude/agents that fit explorer, worker and researcher. Draft only the missing ones. Set each to model: sonnet, effort: medium. List any that pin a different model and leave them 2. In ~/.claude/settings.json set effortLevel to high and advisorModel to fable. 3. Report anything that disables the advisor (CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADVISOR_TOOL, DISABLE_TELEMETRY, flag-fetching blockers) and CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL. Change nothing. 4. Add to ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md: consult the advisor before a large plan, when an error repeats, and before calling a long task done. Show every change as a diff. No edits until I say go." ↳

Mr. Buzzoni

142,491 次观看 • 8 天前

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." ↳

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 次观看 • 8 天前

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." ↳

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

693,243 次观看 • 10 天前

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

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

Alvaro Cintas

51,598 次观看 • 1 天前

this is straight f*cking gold for anyone on Claude Code you already pay for Fable 5.1, and while Opus 5.5 does all the work it just sits there one command puts it on your session as a senior reviewer: /advisor fable Opus 5.5 keeps writing the code Fable 5.1 reads the whole session, every tool call included, and speaks up at three moments only: > 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 does the same thing one layer down: 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 actually 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" ↳

this is straight f*cking gold for anyone on Claude Code you already pay for Fable 5.1, and while Opus 5.5 does all the work it just sits there one command puts it on your session as a senior reviewer: /advisor fable Opus 5.5 keeps writing the code Fable 5.1 reads the whole session, every tool call included, and speaks up at three moments only: > 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 does the same thing one layer down: 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 actually 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" ↳

Annatar.md

74,132 次观看 • 9 天前

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." ↳

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

324,448 次观看 • 10 天前

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."

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

250,263 次观看 • 6 天前

$I don't understand why everyone isn't doing this yet. Anthropic released a guide for Claude that makes work much more efficient while burning a fraction of the tokens Main Idea: Agent Teams in Claude Code Instead of burning the expensive Opus 5.5 context on every line of code, tasks are delegated across an autonomous swarm: Architect (Opus 5.5, high effort): Plans the structure and handles final PR merges Developers (Sonnet 5.5, medium effort): Write code inside isolated ⁠git worktree⁠ environments (UI/UX, backend) Adversary / Critic (Fable 5.1): Steps in at contract boundaries, recurring test failures, and pre-PR audits to catch vulnerabilities Script Layer (Jev): Handles mechanical tasks (opening files, CLI invocations) in 16ms without involving LLMs Launch the team via terminal: claude --teammates ux,backend,adversary Configure my Claude Code workspace for autonomous agent teams: In ⁠~/.claude/teams⁠, generate missing roles: set workers to ⁠Sonnet⁠ (⁠medium effort⁠) in separate ⁠git worktree⁠ branches, and the adversary to ⁠Fable⁠ In ⁠~/.claude/settings.json⁠, set ⁠CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS=1⁠ and lock the main session to ⁠effortLevel: high⁠ Initialize ⁠tasks.json⁠ with file-level locking for direct peer coordination In ⁠CLAUDE.md⁠, add a rule requiring an adversary review before opening a PR. Show configuration diffs before applying edits >$

I don't understand why everyone isn't doing this yet. Anthropic released a guide for Claude that makes work much more efficient while burning a fraction of the tokens Main Idea: Agent Teams in Claude Code Instead of burning the expensive Opus 5.5 context on every line of code, tasks are delegated across an autonomous swarm: Architect (Opus 5.5, high effort): Plans the structure and handles final PR merges Developers (Sonnet 5.5, medium effort): Write code inside isolated ⁠git worktree⁠ environments (UI/UX, backend) Adversary / Critic (Fable 5.1): Steps in at contract boundaries, recurring test failures, and pre-PR audits to catch vulnerabilities Script Layer (Jev): Handles mechanical tasks (opening files, CLI invocations) in 16ms without involving LLMs Launch the team via terminal: claude --teammates ux,backend,adversary Configure my Claude Code workspace for autonomous agent teams: In ⁠~/.claude/teams⁠, generate missing roles: set workers to ⁠Sonnet⁠ (⁠medium effort⁠) in separate ⁠git worktree⁠ branches, and the adversary to ⁠Fable⁠ In ⁠~/.claude/settings.json⁠, set ⁠CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS=1⁠ and lock the main session to ⁠effortLevel: high⁠ Initialize ⁠tasks.json⁠ with file-level locking for direct peer coordination In ⁠CLAUDE.md⁠, add a rule requiring an adversary review before opening a PR. Show configuration diffs before applying edits >

Bober_smart

320,915 次观看 • 5 天前

holy sh*t. Official Anthropic tip for Claude Code: stop burning Opus 5.5 context on tasks Haiku 5.5 can swarm, while Sonnet 5.5 builds put the architect on call with /advisor claude --advisor opus --subagents haiku Sonnet 5.5 drives the primary session on high effort, writing diffs and running test suites Haiku 5.5 subagents swarm the repo in parallel at 340 tok/s, handling file discovery and spec docs lookup Opus 5.5 stays on call in the background as the advisor, only stepping in at three critical moments: → before a plan locks: does the implementation plan miss auth invariants or schema contracts? → when a test breaks twice: are we fixing the root cause or falling into a recursive rabbit hole? → before calling done: did the full diff introduce hidden regressions or break pre-flight rules? Opus 5.5 reviews. Sonnet 5.5 builds. Haiku 5.5 swarms Jev engineering runs the identical pattern one layer down: mechanical decisions that need no reasoning (which file to open, which tool to invoke, retry or abort) execute in 16ms, so the frontier models only wake up when execution paths actually diverge Plan on high. Delegate on medium. Keep Opus on call. - the full advisor setup > Opus 5.5 on call reads full session history and catches deep architectural traps > Sonnet 5.5 lead drives edits, writes core logic, and executes test harnesses > Haiku 5.5 subagents swarm AST parsing, grep scans, and API docs in parallel > JEV micro-fork layer resolves 1,500+ mechanical routing branches in under 16ms > advisor stays completely silent on routine bash execution to protect context paste the setup and this prompt into Claude Code below: "Configure my Claude Code workspace for hierarchical advisor orchestration: 1. Audit ~/.claude/settings.json and project config for model roles fitting lead, subagents, and advisor: > Pin main session model: sonnet with effortLevel: high for primary execution > Pin subagents model: haiku with effortLevel: medium for parallel file discovery and docs retrieval > Pin advisor model: opus on call for strategic review 2. Enable the advisor tool in ~/.claude/settings.json: > Set advisorModel to claude-opus-5-5 > Enable subagent parallel dispatcher pool (3x workers) 3. Configure automatic advisor consultation checkpoints in ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md: > Consult /advisor opus before finalizing multi-file architecture plans > Automatically summon /advisor opus when the same test or compiler error fails twice > Enforce advisor diff contract audit before declaring tasks complete or staging git commits 4. Constrain subagent scopes: > Haiku subagents return structured AST summaries and docs snippets only without modifying main session context Show every configuration diff first. Do not apply edits until confirmed" ↳

holy sh*t. Official Anthropic tip for Claude Code: stop burning Opus 5.5 context on tasks Haiku 5.5 can swarm, while Sonnet 5.5 builds put the architect on call with /advisor claude --advisor opus --subagents haiku Sonnet 5.5 drives the primary session on high effort, writing diffs and running test suites Haiku 5.5 subagents swarm the repo in parallel at 340 tok/s, handling file discovery and spec docs lookup Opus 5.5 stays on call in the background as the advisor, only stepping in at three critical moments: → before a plan locks: does the implementation plan miss auth invariants or schema contracts? → when a test breaks twice: are we fixing the root cause or falling into a recursive rabbit hole? → before calling done: did the full diff introduce hidden regressions or break pre-flight rules? Opus 5.5 reviews. Sonnet 5.5 builds. Haiku 5.5 swarms Jev engineering runs the identical pattern one layer down: mechanical decisions that need no reasoning (which file to open, which tool to invoke, retry or abort) execute in 16ms, so the frontier models only wake up when execution paths actually diverge Plan on high. Delegate on medium. Keep Opus on call. - the full advisor setup > Opus 5.5 on call reads full session history and catches deep architectural traps > Sonnet 5.5 lead drives edits, writes core logic, and executes test harnesses > Haiku 5.5 subagents swarm AST parsing, grep scans, and API docs in parallel > JEV micro-fork layer resolves 1,500+ mechanical routing branches in under 16ms > advisor stays completely silent on routine bash execution to protect context paste the setup and this prompt into Claude Code below: "Configure my Claude Code workspace for hierarchical advisor orchestration: 1. Audit ~/.claude/settings.json and project config for model roles fitting lead, subagents, and advisor: > Pin main session model: sonnet with effortLevel: high for primary execution > Pin subagents model: haiku with effortLevel: medium for parallel file discovery and docs retrieval > Pin advisor model: opus on call for strategic review 2. Enable the advisor tool in ~/.claude/settings.json: > Set advisorModel to claude-opus-5-5 > Enable subagent parallel dispatcher pool (3x workers) 3. Configure automatic advisor consultation checkpoints in ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md: > Consult /advisor opus before finalizing multi-file architecture plans > Automatically summon /advisor opus when the same test or compiler error fails twice > Enforce advisor diff contract audit before declaring tasks complete or staging git commits 4. Constrain subagent scopes: > Haiku subagents return structured AST summaries and docs snippets only without modifying main session context Show every configuration diff first. Do not apply edits until confirmed" ↳

mirku

610,241 次观看 • 1 天前

this is certified f*cking gold for anyone paying for Claude Sonnet 5.5 costs half of what Opus 5.5 does on real office work across 44 jobs it scores 1844. Opus scores 1846 on coding it went from 10.3% to 70.6% in one version and passed Opus on the way most of what you pay Opus for, Sonnet 5.5 now does at half the price here's how to split the work: • give it to Sonnet 5.5 > bug fixes and well-scoped coding tasks > decks built from your own slide template > spreadsheets and polished documents > UI polish, it has a real eye for design > fast back-and-forth, it runs 30%+ faster • keep it for Opus 5.5 > long, open-ended work with judgment calls for hours > anything where one wrong assumption costs you a day • the setting that saves the most > Medium is the default in the Claude apps and Claude Code > on Low or Medium it beats Sonnet 5's best score for a tenth of the cost > raise effort only when the first answer falls short • the price > $2 in and $10 out, against $4 and $20 for Opus > cache reads $0.20 on both • check before you switch > if you ran Sonnet with thinking off, move to the new between_tools setting first whoever routes the weekly grunt work to Sonnet 5.5 and saves Opus for the hard calls ships more on half the budget, and that's the person who gets noticed

this is certified f*cking gold for anyone paying for Claude Sonnet 5.5 costs half of what Opus 5.5 does on real office work across 44 jobs it scores 1844. Opus scores 1846 on coding it went from 10.3% to 70.6% in one version and passed Opus on the way most of what you pay Opus for, Sonnet 5.5 now does at half the price here's how to split the work: • give it to Sonnet 5.5 > bug fixes and well-scoped coding tasks > decks built from your own slide template > spreadsheets and polished documents > UI polish, it has a real eye for design > fast back-and-forth, it runs 30%+ faster • keep it for Opus 5.5 > long, open-ended work with judgment calls for hours > anything where one wrong assumption costs you a day • the setting that saves the most > Medium is the default in the Claude apps and Claude Code > on Low or Medium it beats Sonnet 5's best score for a tenth of the cost > raise effort only when the first answer falls short • the price > $2 in and $10 out, against $4 and $20 for Opus > cache reads $0.20 on both • check before you switch > if you ran Sonnet with thinking off, move to the new between_tools setting first whoever routes the weekly grunt work to Sonnet 5.5 and saves Opus for the hard calls ships more on half the budget, and that's the person who gets noticed

Annatar.md

19,513 次观看 • 10 天前

$ANTHROPIC JUST QUIETLY SHIPPED A FEATURE THAT LETS CLAUDE SPAWN A WHOLE TEAM OF AGENTS THAT MESSAGE EACH OTHER AND REVIEW EACH OTHER'S WORK. It's a Claude Code feature called agent teams. The team lead spawns multiple agents that share a task list and message each other directly, not subagents reporting back, actual peers. In the demo a QA agent caught three bugs, sent the work back to the front-end and back-end devs, they fixed it, app shipped in one pass. How to run it: 1. Enable it. Needs Claude Code v2.1.32+. Add to settings.json: "env": { "CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS": "1" }. Or paste that to Claude and say "add this to my settings." Restart. 2. Prompt in plain English. Start with a goal (agents wake with zero context), then "create a team of 3 using Sonnet," describe each role, its deliverable, and who it messages when done. 3. The rules: each agent owns its own files, define exact outputs, name who talks to who, keep it to 3-5 agents. Use it for complex work with separate parts running in parallel. Skip it for simple or sequential tasks, teams cost 3-4x the tokens. Bookmark this.$

ANTHROPIC JUST QUIETLY SHIPPED A FEATURE THAT LETS CLAUDE SPAWN A WHOLE TEAM OF AGENTS THAT MESSAGE EACH OTHER AND REVIEW EACH OTHER'S WORK. It's a Claude Code feature called agent teams. The team lead spawns multiple agents that share a task list and message each other directly, not subagents reporting back, actual peers. In the demo a QA agent caught three bugs, sent the work back to the front-end and back-end devs, they fixed it, app shipped in one pass. How to run it: 1. Enable it. Needs Claude Code v2.1.32+. Add to settings.json: "env": { "CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS": "1" }. Or paste that to Claude and say "add this to my settings." Restart. 2. Prompt in plain English. Start with a goal (agents wake with zero context), then "create a team of 3 using Sonnet," describe each role, its deliverable, and who it messages when done. 3. The rules: each agent owns its own files, define exact outputs, name who talks to who, keep it to 3-5 agents. Use it for complex work with separate parts running in parallel. Skip it for simple or sequential tasks, teams cost 3-4x the tokens. Bookmark this.

Yarchi

462,922 次观看 • 3 个月前

A viral Claude Code guide claims agent teams cut token use, but Anthropic's documentation says teams use significantly more tokens than a single session. → Agent teams are experimental and turn on with CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS=1, and each teammate has its own context window → There is no --teammates flag: users ask Claude for teammates in plain language, and custom roles go in subagent definitions → The token saver is the advisor tool, where a cheaper main model consults Opus or Fable only at key decision points → The advisor turns on with /advisor opus, the advisorModel setting or claude --advisor opus Source:

A viral Claude Code guide claims agent teams cut token use, but Anthropic's documentation says teams use significantly more tokens than a single session. → Agent teams are experimental and turn on with CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS=1, and each teammate has its own context window → There is no --teammates flag: users ask Claude for teammates in plain language, and custom roles go in subagent definitions → The token saver is the advisor tool, where a cheaper main model consults Opus or Fable only at key decision points → The advisor turns on with /advisor opus, the advisorModel setting or claude --advisor opus Source:

0xMarioNawfal

49,119 次观看 • 4 天前

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A FILE WHERE 5 AGENTS WITH JEV BUILD A $1.2M A YEAR SYSTEM IN 30 MINUTES you pay $3.70 and walk away with an asset that can do $1.2M a year repo → data model → API → UI → evals no layer starts until the one under it is closed, and that edge is what turns five scripts into a system the operator on Haiku 4.5 brings up the repo and CI, the architect on Opus 5 lays down the data model and migrations two builders on Sonnet 5 run API and UI in parallel, and the reviewer on Opus 5.5 can keep finished code out of prod the evals were sitting in the file before the first line of code existed at minute zero there was not a single file, by the end it is a working product with payments and tests five agents cover in half an hour what a human team bills for a quarter JEV hands one line between layers instead of the whole history, so the next agent never re-reads the project and the run costs $3.70 instead of $370 the build takes 30 minutes, the first customers show up weeks later save this and paste it into Claude Code - let it assemble those 5 layers for you ↓

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A FILE WHERE 5 AGENTS WITH JEV BUILD A $1.2M A YEAR SYSTEM IN 30 MINUTES you pay $3.70 and walk away with an asset that can do $1.2M a year repo → data model → API → UI → evals no layer starts until the one under it is closed, and that edge is what turns five scripts into a system the operator on Haiku 4.5 brings up the repo and CI, the architect on Opus 5 lays down the data model and migrations two builders on Sonnet 5 run API and UI in parallel, and the reviewer on Opus 5.5 can keep finished code out of prod the evals were sitting in the file before the first line of code existed at minute zero there was not a single file, by the end it is a working product with payments and tests five agents cover in half an hour what a human team bills for a quarter JEV hands one line between layers instead of the whole history, so the next agent never re-reads the project and the run costs $3.70 instead of $370 the build takes 30 minutes, the first customers show up weeks later save this and paste it into Claude Code - let it assemble those 5 layers for you ↓

Sprytix

14,208 次观看 • 13 天前

OPUS 5.5 + SONNET 5.5 + JEV + DOTS on one spider, and 90% of your work is gone... one spider reads 5,152 items across 6 sources that you never open: 2,140 emails, 1,204 CRM records, 860 slack messages nothing waits for you to write a prompt, because Dots is always on and owns the job 24/7 every item gets a decision from Jev in 81 ms, so all 5,152 take under 7 minutes: urgent or not, how risky, and 1 of 3 routes the routine work goes to Sonnet 5.5, 12 drafts in this run, 12 marked done, 0 written by you the whole time Opus 5.5 sleeps and wakes up for 1 hard case out of 5,152. the other 5,151 never wake it your share drops from 100% to 10%, the other 90% of your work is gone ↓

OPUS 5.5 + SONNET 5.5 + JEV + DOTS on one spider, and 90% of your work is gone... one spider reads 5,152 items across 6 sources that you never open: 2,140 emails, 1,204 CRM records, 860 slack messages nothing waits for you to write a prompt, because Dots is always on and owns the job 24/7 every item gets a decision from Jev in 81 ms, so all 5,152 take under 7 minutes: urgent or not, how risky, and 1 of 3 routes the routine work goes to Sonnet 5.5, 12 drafts in this run, 12 marked done, 0 written by you the whole time Opus 5.5 sleeps and wakes up for 1 hard case out of 5,152. the other 5,151 never wake it your share drops from 100% to 10%, the other 90% of your work is gone ↓

Noisy

37,185 次观看 • 5 天前

Anthropic just revealed a trick to improve how Claude Opus 5.5 works. The idea is that Opus does the work while Fable 5.1 acts as a second opinion. All you have to do is open Claude Code and run: /advisor fable When Opus consults Fable, it gets the full context of the session, including the tools used and their results. It can be especially useful: → Before creating a large plan → When the same error keeps happening → Before marking a task as finished This gives you a second review without having to copy context between conversations. The feature is still experimental, requires access to Fable, and uses additional tokens. 🔖 Save this for your next session.

Anthropic just revealed a trick to improve how Claude Opus 5.5 works. The idea is that Opus does the work while Fable 5.1 acts as a second opinion. All you have to do is open Claude Code and run: /advisor fable When Opus consults Fable, it gets the full context of the session, including the tools used and their results. It can be especially useful: → Before creating a large plan → When the same error keeps happening → Before marking a task as finished This gives you a second review without having to copy context between conversations. The feature is still experimental, requires access to Fable, and uses additional tokens. 🔖 Save this for your next session.

Dean W. Perkins

48,271 次观看 • 5 天前

OPUS 5.5 + SONNET 5.5 + JEV + OPENAI DOTS: one spider pulled 40 AI engineers out of them and put a business on autopilot 40 seats, 4 teams of 10, and every seat is filled by a model a human team of 40 covers 1,600 hours a week. these seats stay on for all 168, which is 6,720 hours, 4.2x more from the same headcount at $13,750 a seat, 40 human engineers cost $550,000 a month in payroll before anyone writes a line of code the web under them has 16 threads: sales, leads, ads, CRM, support, billing, finance, legal, hiring and 7 more a task lands on any thread, and 10 routing engineers on Jev decide which agent gets it 10 planners on Opus 5.5 keep the roadmap and review the work in plan.md, while 10 builders on Sonnet 5.5 ship code every day from build py 10 more on OpenAI Dots run ops and never switch off, 24/7 the counter stops at 40 of 40, the status flips to live, and autopilot turns on ↓

OPUS 5.5 + SONNET 5.5 + JEV + OPENAI DOTS: one spider pulled 40 AI engineers out of them and put a business on autopilot 40 seats, 4 teams of 10, and every seat is filled by a model a human team of 40 covers 1,600 hours a week. these seats stay on for all 168, which is 6,720 hours, 4.2x more from the same headcount at $13,750 a seat, 40 human engineers cost $550,000 a month in payroll before anyone writes a line of code the web under them has 16 threads: sales, leads, ads, CRM, support, billing, finance, legal, hiring and 7 more a task lands on any thread, and 10 routing engineers on Jev decide which agent gets it 10 planners on Opus 5.5 keep the roadmap and review the work in plan.md, while 10 builders on Sonnet 5.5 ship code every day from build py 10 more on OpenAI Dots run ops and never switch off, 24/7 the counter stops at 40 of 40, the status flips to live, and autopilot turns on ↓

Noisy

14,894 次观看 • 4 天前

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

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

thehype.

18,509 次观看 • 1 个月前

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

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

Carnage

16,674 次观看 • 16 天前