Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

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....

noisyb0y1's profile picture

Noisy

27,604 subscribers

12,985 просмотров • 2 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 15

Фото профиля Hussain Hashim | Building SundayBack
Hussain Hashim | Building SundayBack2 дней назад

@noisyb0y1 replacing those 2am fire drills we all dread with AI sounds like a dream. I hit that wall building my own thing, can totally relate!

Фото профиля Morlex
Morlex2 дней назад

must have been pretty hard to put everything together, the setup looks amazing

Фото профиля Donatello
Donatello1 день назад

Spider build looks crazy

Фото профиля karcharodon
karcharodon1 день назад

Opus 5.5 and other ai models combo is awesome

Фото профиля Egor
Egor2 дней назад

routing carries the coordination load across all 16 threads

Фото профиля CDG
CDG1 день назад

routing via Jev to protect opus 5.5 reasoning tokens ? thats pure architectural genius

Фото профиля Avid
Avid1 день назад

replacing all those complex tasks with this spider seems smart

Фото профиля Jack
Jack1 день назад

一个spider搭出一家公司，离谱

Фото профиля BreezeOg
BreezeOg1 день назад

40 seats is wild but who reviews the reviewers thats the part i wanna see

Фото профиля Terracoach Arts
Terracoach Arts1 день назад

Read this :

Фото профиля John Smith
John Smith1 день назад

Done

Фото профиля 安叫兽|Bird🕊️ 🔶 BNB
安叫兽|Bird🕊️ 🔶 BNB2 дней назад

40 个席位全天候跑，先担心协调成本会不会反噬

Фото профиля Colbert
Colbert1 день назад

The math on that productivity jump is wild. Replacing the overhead of a full team with always-on agents is honestly the dream for scaling lean.

Фото профиля Dima | AI at Sea
Dima | AI at Sea1 день назад

The part that usually breaks first is handoff between threads, agents losing shared context when a task moves from routing to planning to build without a common state store under all 16.

Фото профиля Slonski
Slonski1 день назад

forty seats and sixteen threads the difficulty is not the number of agents but the routing

Похожие видео

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 ↓
0:33

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

36,585 просмотров • 3 дней назад

JEV + OPUS 5.5 IS INSANE FOR BUILDING A COMPANY BRAIN I pulled the whole architecture out of the TypeSafe and Anthropic docs and packed it into a 14-page PDF the 10 steps: 1. meet the pair > Opus 5.5 thinks, Jev decides, your code holds the branch 2. stop asking a text generator for a yes or no > Jev returns a typed answer with a calibrated probability in 0.44s for $0.00035 3. ask everything at once > Choice, Score and Noul run in parallel, so the fourth question costs almost nothing 4. branch on the number > 0.999 goes straight into the if statement. ~99% of turns end right here 5. stop routing blind > Opus 5.5 to Sonnet and back costs 5.84 against 3.32 for staying on 5.5 6. keep one context warm > cache reads at $0.20 per Mtok are 20x cheaper than a fresh load 7. escalate the hard part > the toughest 1% goes to Opus 5.5 with 1M context and 66.4% on Terminal-Bench 4.0 8. score every chunk on every query > keep whole, summarize or drop. the context gets rebuilt each turn 9. gate the actual command > every bash call gets classified before it runs, inside your own code 10. judge 100% of runs > $3.50 a day for 10,000 traces, and it matched the human label on all 500 decisions the result: a while loop that paid a frontier model for every tiny call turns into a brain that spends a fraction of a cent to notice and pays properly only when it has to think the person who brings this into their team walks into the budget meeting with the AI bill cut and the output up the PDF maps the company brain. the loop side of it - how Jev takes a Claude bill from $765 to $3 a month - is in the article below ↓
0:24

JEV + OPUS 5.5 IS INSANE FOR BUILDING A COMPANY BRAIN I pulled the whole architecture out of the TypeSafe and Anthropic docs and packed it into a 14-page PDF the 10 steps: 1. meet the pair > Opus 5.5 thinks, Jev decides, your code holds the branch 2. stop asking a text generator for a yes or no > Jev returns a typed answer with a calibrated probability in 0.44s for $0.00035 3. ask everything at once > Choice, Score and Noul run in parallel, so the fourth question costs almost nothing 4. branch on the number > 0.999 goes straight into the if statement. ~99% of turns end right here 5. stop routing blind > Opus 5.5 to Sonnet and back costs 5.84 against 3.32 for staying on 5.5 6. keep one context warm > cache reads at $0.20 per Mtok are 20x cheaper than a fresh load 7. escalate the hard part > the toughest 1% goes to Opus 5.5 with 1M context and 66.4% on Terminal-Bench 4.0 8. score every chunk on every query > keep whole, summarize or drop. the context gets rebuilt each turn 9. gate the actual command > every bash call gets classified before it runs, inside your own code 10. judge 100% of runs > $3.50 a day for 10,000 traces, and it matched the human label on all 500 decisions the result: a while loop that paid a frontier model for every tiny call turns into a brain that spends a fraction of a cent to notice and pays properly only when it has to think the person who brings this into their team walks into the budget meeting with the AI bill cut and the output up the PDF maps the company brain. the loop side of it - how Jev takes a Claude bill from $765 to $3 a month - is in the article below ↓

Mr. Buzzoni

85,590 просмотров • 8 дней назад

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
0:24

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 просмотров • 7 дней назад

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." ↳
0:31

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

42,409 просмотров • 3 дней назад

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 ↓
0:40

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 просмотров • 13 дней назад

Claude Code tip: keep Opus 5.5 as your main model, but stop paying Opus prices for your subagents move them to Sonnet 5.5 Opus 5.5 plans and decides Sonnet 5.5 subagents do the heavy reading, editing and testing at half the price ($2 / $10 vs $4 / $20 per 1M tokens) Fable 5.1 stays on call with /advisor 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? Opus thinks. Sonnet does. Fable checks 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 > worker edits and runs tests > researcher pulls the docs > all three on Sonnet 5.5, 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: claude-sonnet-5-5, effort: medium > List any that pin a different model before changing them 2. Keep the main session on Opus, set effortLevel to high in ~/.claude/settings.json and 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." ↳
0:32

Claude Code tip: keep Opus 5.5 as your main model, but stop paying Opus prices for your subagents move them to Sonnet 5.5 Opus 5.5 plans and decides Sonnet 5.5 subagents do the heavy reading, editing and testing at half the price ($2 / $10 vs $4 / $20 per 1M tokens) Fable 5.1 stays on call with /advisor 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? Opus thinks. Sonnet does. Fable checks 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 > worker edits and runs tests > researcher pulls the docs > all three on Sonnet 5.5, 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: claude-sonnet-5-5, effort: medium > List any that pin a different model before changing them 2. Keep the main session on Opus, set effortLevel to high in ~/.claude/settings.json and 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

27,459 просмотров • 4 дней назад

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A FILE WHERE 10 BUSINESSES ASSEMBLE IN 24 HOURS, MAKE $100K + A MONTH AND COST $8 A DAY TOGETHER one of those 10 loops replaces a $2,000/month agency - and it runs for $1.80 a day. the routing never changes: Haiku at the door, Sonnet on the volume, Opus only where being wrong is expensive. Opus enters exactly 4 loops out of 10 - and in each of those four the mistake has a name: a fine, a misjudged tender, a missed contradiction, 21 drafts sold to nobody. the other 6 fail cheaply and just retry - that's the whole test for who gets the expensive model. competitive intel reads 200 pages for $0.40 and hands back one paragraph - a subscription to the same thing is $500 a month. lead scoring sees 300 signals and 12 get a real letter - the other 288 cost less than a cent between them. review monitoring runs at $0.35 and answers in 4 minutes - a human notices the same review 2 days later. the onboarding agent closes 38 questions out of 40 and hands 2 to a person - a loop that never escalates is a loop that's guessing. the compliance check finds the 4 lines that differ and rules on them for $1.50 - a consultant charges that per hour. all 10 together are $243 a month against the salaries they replace. save this and paste it into Claude Code - cheap at the door, expensive only where being wrong costs ↓
1:11

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A FILE WHERE 10 BUSINESSES ASSEMBLE IN 24 HOURS, MAKE $100K + A MONTH AND COST $8 A DAY TOGETHER one of those 10 loops replaces a $2,000/month agency - and it runs for $1.80 a day. the routing never changes: Haiku at the door, Sonnet on the volume, Opus only where being wrong is expensive. Opus enters exactly 4 loops out of 10 - and in each of those four the mistake has a name: a fine, a misjudged tender, a missed contradiction, 21 drafts sold to nobody. the other 6 fail cheaply and just retry - that's the whole test for who gets the expensive model. competitive intel reads 200 pages for $0.40 and hands back one paragraph - a subscription to the same thing is $500 a month. lead scoring sees 300 signals and 12 get a real letter - the other 288 cost less than a cent between them. review monitoring runs at $0.35 and answers in 4 minutes - a human notices the same review 2 days later. the onboarding agent closes 38 questions out of 40 and hands 2 to a person - a loop that never escalates is a loop that's guessing. the compliance check finds the 4 lines that differ and rules on them for $1.50 - a consultant charges that per hour. all 10 together are $243 a month against the salaries they replace. save this and paste it into Claude Code - cheap at the door, expensive only where being wrong costs ↓

Sprytix

12,603 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A FILE THEY SPENT 4 YEARS BUILDING - 10 WORKERS BUILD A COMPANY IN 24 HOURS AND COST $16.07 OpenAI and Microsoft already replaced their engineers with this file - and save $300,000 a month. you write the root at the start and press release at the end, and all 10 workers read the same file. Opus 5 splits the task and judges the result, Sonnet 5 builds across 3 parallel branches, Haiku 4.5 writes the docs and scans the market. by the time you press the button the diff has passed 2 gates - one asks does it run, the other asks should it ship at all. the 8 build hours are 67% of the bill, while the night shift and the auditor cost 53 cents between them on the batch queue. the auditor rewrites one line in the root - and tomorrow the ring turns on a better file. save this and paste it into Claude Code - a day builds the machine, the market decides the number ↓
1:14

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A FILE THEY SPENT 4 YEARS BUILDING - 10 WORKERS BUILD A COMPANY IN 24 HOURS AND COST $16.07 OpenAI and Microsoft already replaced their engineers with this file - and save $300,000 a month. you write the root at the start and press release at the end, and all 10 workers read the same file. Opus 5 splits the task and judges the result, Sonnet 5 builds across 3 parallel branches, Haiku 4.5 writes the docs and scans the market. by the time you press the button the diff has passed 2 gates - one asks does it run, the other asks should it ship at all. the 8 build hours are 67% of the bill, while the night shift and the auditor cost 53 cents between them on the batch queue. the auditor rewrites one line in the root - and tomorrow the ring turns on a better file. save this and paste it into Claude Code - a day builds the machine, the market decides the number ↓

Noisy

73,408 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

JEV + Opus 5.5 is insane for live design... I built a live site redesigner with JEV + Opus 5.5 Paste any link → press Start → scroll, and Jev + Opus 5.5 rebuild every section of the site in front of you Full production ship in 20 seconds: 1. IntersectionObserver fires when a section is 30%+ in the viewport 2. Jev returns one typed decision in ~0.1s: { layout, copy, drop, type, palette, p } 3. Opus 5.5 writes the component (TSX) + a CSS patch for the chosen style 4. The new section wipes in with clip-path, the old one blurs out 5. Next section enters the queue, one at a time, no race conditions Output: 8 sections of a 2015 hosting site rebuilt in ~20s, streamed line by line in the terminal 3 styles, one renderer: orthographic globe + lambert shading → ASCII / 2-color halftone / ink stipple Scroll yourself and it redesigns whatever you land on Jev decides fast, Opus designs it
0:33

JEV + Opus 5.5 is insane for live design... I built a live site redesigner with JEV + Opus 5.5 Paste any link → press Start → scroll, and Jev + Opus 5.5 rebuild every section of the site in front of you Full production ship in 20 seconds: 1. IntersectionObserver fires when a section is 30%+ in the viewport 2. Jev returns one typed decision in ~0.1s: { layout, copy, drop, type, palette, p } 3. Opus 5.5 writes the component (TSX) + a CSS patch for the chosen style 4. The new section wipes in with clip-path, the old one blurs out 5. Next section enters the queue, one at a time, no race conditions Output: 8 sections of a 2015 hosting site rebuilt in ~20s, streamed line by line in the terminal 3 styles, one renderer: orthographic globe + lambert shading → ASCII / 2-color halftone / ink stipple Scroll yourself and it redesigns whatever you land on Jev decides fast, Opus designs it

Movez

106,833 просмотров • 11 дней назад

Here's the comparison of the "Mechanical Bee" made by Gemini 4 with Opus 5.5, Astra and Sonnet 5.5! The same prompt was used for all 4 tests.. Honestly they all look quite good and are unique on their own.. > Opus 5.5's output is the clearest of all.. I love the details > Sonnet 5.5 surprised me.. its output is the most creative one of all the models.. > Astra didn't quite impress me.. but it was decent Gemini 4's output is from the last checkpoint we got in arena.. and Gemini 4 Argon could be a further preview checkpoint or a previous one.. Which one did you like the most?
0:32

Here's the comparison of the "Mechanical Bee" made by Gemini 4 with Opus 5.5, Astra and Sonnet 5.5! The same prompt was used for all 4 tests.. Honestly they all look quite good and are unique on their own.. > Opus 5.5's output is the clearest of all.. I love the details > Sonnet 5.5 surprised me.. its output is the most creative one of all the models.. > Astra didn't quite impress me.. but it was decent Gemini 4's output is from the last checkpoint we got in arena.. and Gemini 4 Argon could be a further preview checkpoint or a previous one.. Which one did you like the most?

Bee

17,775 просмотров • 3 дней назад

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." ↳
0:24

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 просмотров • 5 дней назад

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 ↓
1:20

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 просмотров • 10 дней назад

ok this is a f*cking cheat code for coding agents how to make them 200x faster and 400x cheaper with Jev engineering Jev founder Diogo Amogo put the whole harness into a 12-page PDF, 10 steps: 1. meet Jev the LLM writes, the harness executes, Jev decides what each turn sees, where it routes and whether it runs 2. ask the question that breaks every agent how would you build one if LLMs had no KV cache? 3. quit blind routing Claude Opus 5.5 -> Sonnet 5.5 -> Opus costs 6.19, Opus alone 4.15, because every handoff reprocesses the full context 4. follow the tokens reading and searching eat 56.2% of tool turns and 46.5% of tokens, writing code stays under 10% 5. score each chunk per query hide it, summarize it or keep it whole, and compress once the question is known 6. reveal tools in tiers one-line snippets for hundreds of tools, full schema on demand 7. load instructions by condition a *.tsx edit pulls the style guide, billing/ pulls its gotchas file, compaction can't wipe either 8. route by trust as well as difficulty secrets and infra stay on first-party frontier models, public docs go to the cheapest one 9. reuse one retrieval pass review, evals, explainers and progress pages all run read-only in the background 10. gate every command allow / ask / deny policies read the whole script before it runs hand this PDF and the article below to Claude Code or Codex and start shipping faster
0:24

ok this is a f*cking cheat code for coding agents how to make them 200x faster and 400x cheaper with Jev engineering Jev founder Diogo Amogo put the whole harness into a 12-page PDF, 10 steps: 1. meet Jev the LLM writes, the harness executes, Jev decides what each turn sees, where it routes and whether it runs 2. ask the question that breaks every agent how would you build one if LLMs had no KV cache? 3. quit blind routing Claude Opus 5.5 -> Sonnet 5.5 -> Opus costs 6.19, Opus alone 4.15, because every handoff reprocesses the full context 4. follow the tokens reading and searching eat 56.2% of tool turns and 46.5% of tokens, writing code stays under 10% 5. score each chunk per query hide it, summarize it or keep it whole, and compress once the question is known 6. reveal tools in tiers one-line snippets for hundreds of tools, full schema on demand 7. load instructions by condition a *.tsx edit pulls the style guide, billing/ pulls its gotchas file, compaction can't wipe either 8. route by trust as well as difficulty secrets and infra stay on first-party frontier models, public docs go to the cheapest one 9. reuse one retrieval pass review, evals, explainers and progress pages all run read-only in the background 10. gate every command allow / ask / deny policies read the whole script before it runs hand this PDF and the article below to Claude Code or Codex and start shipping faster

Mr. Buzzoni

20,218 просмотров • 3 дней назад

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A $4.2M FILE WHERE 4 AGENTS BUILD THE JEV SYSTEM IN 60 MINUTES, DOING $100K A MONTH four agents cost $0, and the system they assemble in an hour generates $100K a month scout → builder → critic → operator → JEV every agent is pinned to one exact model version, and none of them runs on "latest" the scout on Haiku 4.5 reads the market, the builder on Sonnet 5 builds everything, the critic on Opus 5 decides what ships the operator runs Haiku through the batch API at half price - the one agent that never has to hurry the builder takes 59% of the whole hour, because it's the one writing, and writing costs 5x more than reading short answers are cheap answers - and the whole economics rests on that one rule pin the versions in ROOT.md and next month JEV behaves exactly the same point it at "latest" and the model underneath updates quietly, no error, and the answers start to drift $100K a month is 334 customers at $299 four versions, one system - pin them and JEV stays JEV save this and paste it into Claude Code - let it build you these 4 agents ↓
1:28

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A $4.2M FILE WHERE 4 AGENTS BUILD THE JEV SYSTEM IN 60 MINUTES, DOING $100K A MONTH four agents cost $0, and the system they assemble in an hour generates $100K a month scout → builder → critic → operator → JEV every agent is pinned to one exact model version, and none of them runs on "latest" the scout on Haiku 4.5 reads the market, the builder on Sonnet 5 builds everything, the critic on Opus 5 decides what ships the operator runs Haiku through the batch API at half price - the one agent that never has to hurry the builder takes 59% of the whole hour, because it's the one writing, and writing costs 5x more than reading short answers are cheap answers - and the whole economics rests on that one rule pin the versions in ROOT.md and next month JEV behaves exactly the same point it at "latest" and the model underneath updates quietly, no error, and the answers start to drift $100K a month is 334 customers at $299 four versions, one system - pin them and JEV stays JEV save this and paste it into Claude Code - let it build you these 4 agents ↓

Sprytix

37,977 просмотров • 15 дней назад

i tested sonnet 5.5 on "code-to-painting". every pixel is generated by python the model wrote. it's shown a photo, writes a brush engine, renders, looks, and revises. you can see the large step-up from sonnet 5 in terms of coding + visual reasoning.
0:25

i tested sonnet 5.5 on "code-to-painting". every pixel is generated by python the model wrote. it's shown a photo, writes a brush engine, renders, looks, and revises. you can see the large step-up from sonnet 5 in terms of coding + visual reasoning.

Lance Martin

12,835 просмотров • 7 дней назад

Opus 5.5 was used to build a large set of imaginary UI designs focused on information-richness and visual eye candy over functionality, requiring significantly less course correction than Opus 4.7 on the same project type while feeling more creative and token-efficient. → All designs are free and live at best viewed on larger screens → Built on a previous foundation from an Opus 4.7 version of the same project → Opus 5.5 felt more intuitively aligned and aesthetically minded with far less prompting needed
0:20

Opus 5.5 was used to build a large set of imaginary UI designs focused on information-richness and visual eye candy over functionality, requiring significantly less course correction than Opus 4.7 on the same project type while feeling more creative and token-efficient. → All designs are free and live at best viewed on larger screens → Built on a previous foundation from an Opus 4.7 version of the same project → Opus 5.5 felt more intuitively aligned and aesthetically minded with far less prompting needed

0xMarioNawfal

43,843 просмотров • 14 часов назад

Boris Cherny, creator of Claude Code: "Opus 5.5 does in a day what used to take your team a month. Most people will keep using it wrong." In 12 minutes he explains why Opus 5.5 needs less prompting than any model before, and why your old detailed prompts now work against you. Watch it, then read the article below on how to prompt Opus 5.5 👇
10:59

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

Rahul

150,829 просмотров • 10 дней назад

Anthropic Managed Agents Lead: "Over 90% of Anthropic engineers already build with self-improving loops. My agentic loops run for hours and cost almost nothing." In 40 minutes she builds an AI agent from scratch and shows how engineers at Anthropic use them daily. This video is worth more than any $600 course on agents. Watch it today, then read the guide on building loops below.
40:12

Anthropic Managed Agents Lead: "Over 90% of Anthropic engineers already build with self-improving loops. My agentic loops run for hours and cost almost nothing." In 40 minutes she builds an AI agent from scratch and shows how engineers at Anthropic use them daily. This video is worth more than any $600 course on agents. Watch it today, then read the guide on building loops below.

Anatoli Kopadze

158,507 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

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." ↳
0:24

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

324,014 просмотров • 8 дней назад

Do you understand what just got open sourced? 5,800+ quant trading strategies for FREE along with its CODEBASE i gave these trading strategies to opus 5.5 + jev and it built me a PROFITABLE 24/7 trading agent here is how to use the repo and build AI trading bot: 1. clone the vault and get 5,806 trading strategies (spot, perps, grid, stat arb and market making) 2. open any strategy file, the math, the parameters and the source are already inside 3. point AgenKit at that file inside Claude Code with model as opus 5.5, one command and it reads the spec as ground truth 4. it will run a full engineering team and ships a production bot with risk controls 5. Jev is the live brain, it answers buy sell or hold in 81 milliseconds, calibrated, no hallucination 6. your engine sizes the trade from that confidence and fires it before the next block 7. a hard risk layer holds every limit, nothing goes live until you approve it 8. every night Opus 5.5 reviews the fills and ships a better version, so the agent improves while you sleep one model THINKS, the other REACTS and a strategy that sat locked in a vault now trades itself 24/7 the COMPLETE codebase and the EXACT Opus 5.5 + Jev trading system which I am running is in the article below:
0:39

Do you understand what just got open sourced? 5,800+ quant trading strategies for FREE along with its CODEBASE i gave these trading strategies to opus 5.5 + jev and it built me a PROFITABLE 24/7 trading agent here is how to use the repo and build AI trading bot: 1. clone the vault and get 5,806 trading strategies (spot, perps, grid, stat arb and market making) 2. open any strategy file, the math, the parameters and the source are already inside 3. point AgenKit at that file inside Claude Code with model as opus 5.5, one command and it reads the spec as ground truth 4. it will run a full engineering team and ships a production bot with risk controls 5. Jev is the live brain, it answers buy sell or hold in 81 milliseconds, calibrated, no hallucination 6. your engine sizes the trade from that confidence and fires it before the next block 7. a hard risk layer holds every limit, nothing goes live until you approve it 8. every night Opus 5.5 reviews the fills and ships a better version, so the agent improves while you sleep one model THINKS, the other REACTS and a strategy that sat locked in a vault now trades itself 24/7 the COMPLETE codebase and the EXACT Opus 5.5 + Jev trading system which I am running is in the article below:

Roan

93,835 просмотров • 8 дней назад