Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

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

Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Astra vs Fable 5.1. Same recording, same editing brief. Each had to remove pauses and mistakes, build visuals from scratch, switch between full-screen moments and reaction shots, and add background music with a final fade-out. Raw footage is top left. The other three are AI... show more

0xMarioNawfal

266,398 subscribers

52,184 Aufrufe • vor 5 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & Politik Wissenschaft & Technologie

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

2 Kommentare

Profilbild von Ted Trading Club

Ted Trading Clubvor 5 Tagen

Fable 5.1 takes it for me.

Profilbild von vøv △

vøv △vor 5 Tagen

opus 5.5 nails the fade-out tbh

Ähnliche Videos

I gave Opus 5.5, GPT-6 Astra and Fable 5.1 the same raw video, the same brief and my real YouTube editing process (the one I use for my own videos): 1. Give each model the same footage and reference. 2. Ask to cut the pauses and turn your words into visuals. 3. Review the first 10 seconds, then fix it round by round. Which edit came out better? You can get the guide here:

I gave Opus 5.5, GPT-6 Astra and Fable 5.1 the same raw video, the same brief and my real YouTube editing process (the one I use for my own videos): 1. Give each model the same footage and reference. 2. Ask to cut the pauses and turn your words into visuals. 3. Review the first 10 seconds, then fix it round by round. Which edit came out better? You can get the guide here:

Charlie Hills

77,218 Aufrufe • vor 12 Tagen

🚨 Muse Wonder VS Claude Opus 5.5 meta claims Muse Wonder outperforms models like Opus 5.5 and Fable 5.1, so i decided to put that claim to the test. i gave Muse Wonder and Opus 5.5 the exact same prompt: build an animated Popeye website from scratch. and here are the final results from both models. which one won?

🚨 Muse Wonder VS Claude Opus 5.5 meta claims Muse Wonder outperforms models like Opus 5.5 and Fable 5.1, so i decided to put that claim to the test. i gave Muse Wonder and Opus 5.5 the exact same prompt: build an animated Popeye website from scratch. and here are the final results from both models. which one won?

m0h

51,843 Aufrufe • vor 1 Tag

We asked Fable 5.1, GPT-6 Astra, and Gemini 3.8 Flash to write a video prompt from the same brief. All rendered with Seedance 2.5 on each::labs. Which one is your favorite? ⤵

We asked Fable 5.1, GPT-6 Astra, and Gemini 3.8 Flash to write a video prompt from the same brief. All rendered with Seedance 2.5 on each::labs. Which one is your favorite? ⤵

each::labs

120,923 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

The difference between GPT-6 Astra and Fable 5.1 is obvious here. Same prompt, both building a website with real-time fluid physics. Move the cursor and the water reacts, waves spread, run into each other, and slowly flatten out. Built end to end on Higgsfield Supercomputer.

The difference between GPT-6 Astra and Fable 5.1 is obvious here. Same prompt, both building a website with real-time fluid physics. Move the cursor and the water reacts, waves spread, run into each other, and slowly flatten out. Built end to end on Higgsfield Supercomputer.

Higgsfield AI 🧩

45,355 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🚨 GPT-6.1 Sol vs Claude Opus 5.5 Same prompt. Same high effort. Subway Surfers clone in Three.js - both had to build and test. Sol(Left) took : 12 min / 7.32M tokens Opus(right) took : 39 min / 5.6M tokens Sol was 3x faster. Opus used ~23% fewer tokens. Which one are you picking?

🚨 GPT-6.1 Sol vs Claude Opus 5.5 Same prompt. Same high effort. Subway Surfers clone in Three.js - both had to build and test. Sol(Left) took : 12 min / 7.32M tokens Opus(right) took : 39 min / 5.6M tokens Sol was 3x faster. Opus used ~23% fewer tokens. Which one are you picking?

Rajath Gowda

10,763 Aufrufe • vor 11 Tagen

Opus 5.5 vs GPT 6 astra tested both with the same prompt at their highest reasoning settings, using the same devin harness: > opus took 2 hours 10 mins and cost $75 > astra took 1 hour 25 mins and cost $61 opus 5.5 attention to details is on point, it took time to make everything perfect as i wanted but still super slow and ended up costing way more then astra which one did better here?

Opus 5.5 vs GPT 6 astra tested both with the same prompt at their highest reasoning settings, using the same devin harness: > opus took 2 hours 10 mins and cost $75 > astra took 1 hour 25 mins and cost $61 opus 5.5 attention to details is on point, it took time to make everything perfect as i wanted but still super slow and ended up costing way more then astra which one did better here?

J A Z I I

55,525 Aufrufe • vor 21 Tagen

holy sh*t. same prompt, GPT-6 Astra vs Opus 5.5. the lighting alone ended the debate for me Same prompts, zero edits, zero cherry-picking. GPT-6 Astra on top, Opus 5.5 on the bottom. Clip after clip. A snake across an old rug. A swan through the forest. A dolphin in the deep. Astra did what Astra does every time: clean, sharp, detailed. On its own, you’d call it great AI video. Then look at the bottom half. Opus didn’t render the subject. it lit the scene. light pouring through the trees, depth in the water, dust in the air, weight and mood in every frame. Astra shows you the animal. Opus shoots the shot. and it’s not one lucky clip. it’s every single one. a year ago this was a blurry mess. now the fight isn’t “is it real enough,” it’s “which one has better taste.” that flipped fast, and most people haven’t caught up yet. I know which side I’m on. where do you land? GPT-6 Astra or Opus 5.5?

holy sh*t. same prompt, GPT-6 Astra vs Opus 5.5. the lighting alone ended the debate for me Same prompts, zero edits, zero cherry-picking. GPT-6 Astra on top, Opus 5.5 on the bottom. Clip after clip. A snake across an old rug. A swan through the forest. A dolphin in the deep. Astra did what Astra does every time: clean, sharp, detailed. On its own, you’d call it great AI video. Then look at the bottom half. Opus didn’t render the subject. it lit the scene. light pouring through the trees, depth in the water, dust in the air, weight and mood in every frame. Astra shows you the animal. Opus shoots the shot. and it’s not one lucky clip. it’s every single one. a year ago this was a blurry mess. now the fight isn’t “is it real enough,” it’s “which one has better taste.” that flipped fast, and most people haven’t caught up yet. I know which side I’m on. where do you land? GPT-6 Astra or Opus 5.5?

Kinder

228,015 Aufrufe • vor 4 Tagen

You can now choose which model builds your app on Caffeine. The latest models are all in there: Opus 5.5 Fable 5.1 GPT-6 Astra GPT-6 Sol Kimi K3 Sonnet 5 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash Plan a whole new app with a frontier model, then switch to a faster, cheaper one for quick questions and small changes. It works on every plan, starting today.

You can now choose which model builds your app on Caffeine. The latest models are all in there: Opus 5.5 Fable 5.1 GPT-6 Astra GPT-6 Sol Kimi K3 Sonnet 5 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash Plan a whole new app with a frontier model, then switch to a faster, cheaper one for quick questions and small changes. It works on every plan, starting today.

caffeine

15,932 Aufrufe • vor 19 Tagen

Someone gave GPT-6 and Fable 5.1 access to Canva. One smoked the other (it's not even close). Claude Fable 5.1 is on the left. GPT-6 Astra is on the right. The gap is not small. It comes down to one test (ARC-AGI 3). It drops a model into a game with no instructions and makes it work them out. Astra solved levels in fewer moves than you or I would, 96% of the time. Claude Opus 5 managed less than half of that. That's why everyone is shouting about AGI again. You can turn this on yourself in about two minutes: 1. Open the ChatGPT desktop app, switch to Work. 2. Go to Plugins, then Computer Use. Install it. 3. Switch on the server and skill toggles. 4. Allow Screen Recording and Accessibility. 5. Point it at one app and ask it do something. I wrote up the full Claude → Codex migration. Access it here → Repost ♻️ to help someone in your network.

Someone gave GPT-6 and Fable 5.1 access to Canva. One smoked the other (it's not even close). Claude Fable 5.1 is on the left. GPT-6 Astra is on the right. The gap is not small. It comes down to one test (ARC-AGI 3). It drops a model into a game with no instructions and makes it work them out. Astra solved levels in fewer moves than you or I would, 96% of the time. Claude Opus 5 managed less than half of that. That's why everyone is shouting about AGI again. You can turn this on yourself in about two minutes: 1. Open the ChatGPT desktop app, switch to Work. 2. Go to Plugins, then Computer Use. Install it. 3. Switch on the server and skill toggles. 4. Allow Screen Recording and Accessibility. 5. Point it at one app and ask it do something. I wrote up the full Claude → Codex migration. Access it here → Repost ♻️ to help someone in your network.

Charlie Hills

38,355 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Claude Opus 5 vs Gemini 4 vs GPT-6 Astra vs Grok 4.6 I handed the same unfinished drawing to four different AI models and said "be creative." Rumoured Gemini 4 checkpoint is inside Arena. four completely different pandas came out. and I genuinely can't pick a favorite 👇

Claude Opus 5 vs Gemini 4 vs GPT-6 Astra vs Grok 4.6 I handed the same unfinished drawing to four different AI models and said "be creative." Rumoured Gemini 4 checkpoint is inside Arena. four completely different pandas came out. and I genuinely can't pick a favorite 👇

Poonam Soni

37,910 Aufrufe • vor 24 Tagen

Let's keep benchmarking with the Night train this time, with GPT-6 Sol and GPT-6 Luna, so here are all four! 🚀 I gave each model the exact same prompt: “Build a Night train.” •Opus 5.5 • GPT-6 Astra • GPT-6 Sol • GPT-6 Luna Something that really surprised me: GPT-6 Sol produced almost the exact same rocket launch as Opus 5.5! The colors are slightly different, but the overall result is remarkably similar. For this prompt, I’d even put Sol ahead of Astra. I’m seriously impressed by Sol, especially at half the API price of Opus 5.5! 🤯 I’m starting to use this approach in my own workflow. I kept one Codex subscription so I can run a bunch of Sol sub-agents while keeping my main agent on Astra. Sol is so cheap for what it can do! Knowing when to switch models based on the task, the quality you need, and the cost is becoming an essential skill in this new AI era.

Let's keep benchmarking with the Night train this time, with GPT-6 Sol and GPT-6 Luna, so here are all four! 🚀 I gave each model the exact same prompt: “Build a Night train.” •Opus 5.5 • GPT-6 Astra • GPT-6 Sol • GPT-6 Luna Something that really surprised me: GPT-6 Sol produced almost the exact same rocket launch as Opus 5.5! The colors are slightly different, but the overall result is remarkably similar. For this prompt, I’d even put Sol ahead of Astra. I’m seriously impressed by Sol, especially at half the API price of Opus 5.5! 🤯 I’m starting to use this approach in my own workflow. I kept one Codex subscription so I can run a bunch of Sol sub-agents while keeping my main agent on Astra. Sol is so cheap for what it can do! Knowing when to switch models based on the task, the quality you need, and the cost is becoming an essential skill in this new AI era.

Tony

112,633 Aufrufe • vor 19 Tagen

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 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Opus 5 same prompt to each model and i wasn't expecting gemini 3.8 flash to be this fast! build time: > Opus 5: 24 minutes > 3.8 Flash: 37 seconds 💀 if gemini is given same time as opus 5 it will mog the hell out of opus in terms of quality too which one would you choose here?

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Opus 5 same prompt to each model and i wasn't expecting gemini 3.8 flash to be this fast! build time: > Opus 5: 24 minutes > 3.8 Flash: 37 seconds 💀 if gemini is given same time as opus 5 it will mog the hell out of opus in terms of quality too which one would you choose here?

Tim Jayas

76,990 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

GPT-6 Astra edited the exact same talking-head video in ChatCut and DaVinci Resolve. Same footage. Same prompt. We asked it to remove every pause, stutter, and mistake, add relevant B-roll, and export a finished video. Here’s how their editing speeds compare. But ChatCut goes far beyond cutting. In the same workflow, Astra can also: - Edit multiple timelines at the same time - Built in sound effects/stock footage library - Create fully editable motion graphics - Generate AI videos and B-roll using Seedance and Kling - Generate voiceovers and clone voices - Create digital avatars - Install natively ChatCut installs natively as a plugin inside ChatGPT/Codex, and its core AI editing features are free to use. Comment 'Chat' to get the full set up guide.

GPT-6 Astra edited the exact same talking-head video in ChatCut and DaVinci Resolve. Same footage. Same prompt. We asked it to remove every pause, stutter, and mistake, add relevant B-roll, and export a finished video. Here’s how their editing speeds compare. But ChatCut goes far beyond cutting. In the same workflow, Astra can also: - Edit multiple timelines at the same time - Built in sound effects/stock footage library - Create fully editable motion graphics - Generate AI videos and B-roll using Seedance and Kling - Generate voiceovers and clone voices - Create digital avatars - Install natively ChatCut installs natively as a plugin inside ChatGPT/Codex, and its core AI editing features are free to use. Comment 'Chat' to get the full set up guide.

ChatCut

14,346 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

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." ↳

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

delost

44,001 Aufrufe • vor 11 Tagen

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

48,494 Aufrufe • vor 10 Tagen

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 Aufrufe • vor 13 Tagen

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

324,943 Aufrufe • vor 15 Tagen

Cutback has launched Selects, an AI editing assistant for long-form that can video sync, organize, and cut raw footage. Selects analyzes both transcript and video to build a storyline from a prompt in minutes, with Cutback reporting around 60% less editing time per project. In testing by 5 professional editors, it cut raw footage into nearly the same edit they would have, with one noting it picked the same intro he had.

Cutback has launched Selects, an AI editing assistant for long-form that can video sync, organize, and cut raw footage. Selects analyzes both transcript and video to build a storyline from a prompt in minutes, with Cutback reporting around 60% less editing time per project. In testing by 5 professional editors, it cut raw footage into nearly the same edit they would have, with one noting it picked the same intro he had.

🚨 AI News | TestingCatalog

13,091 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Claude Code tip: once Opus 5.5 is your main model, stop leaving Fable 5.1 sitting idle and stop burning Opus tokens on tasks Sonnet 5.5 can swarm put it on call with /advisor run /advisor fable Opus 5.5 plans and ships the code Sonnet 5.5 swarms the routine work at medium effort Fable 5.1 reads the full session, every tool call included, and only speaks up at three points: → before a plan: is this the right approach? → when the same error comes back: am I digging in the wrong place? → before "done": what did I miss? Fable 5.1 reviews. Sonnet 5.5 executes. Opus 5.5 ships Jev engineering is the same move one layer down: the forks that need no thinker (which file, which tool, retry or stop) go to Jev in under half a second, and the big model only sees the ones that split Plan on high. Delegate on medium. Keep Fable on call. - the full tree > Opus 5.5 on high runs the main session > explorer reads the code > worker edits and runs tests > researcher pulls the docs > all three on Sonnet 5.5 at medium effort > Fable 5.1 on call as the advisor paste the tree and this prompt into Claude Code ↓ "Rebuild my Claude Code setup around this tree: 1. Check ~/.claude/agents and .claude/agents for subagents that already fit explorer, worker and researcher. > Draft new ones only for missing roles > Give each model: sonnet, effort: medium > Skip any that pin a different model and list them 2. Set the main session to high via effortLevel in ~/.claude/settings.json, and set advisorModel to fable 3. Find anything that keeps the advisor off (CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADVISOR_TOOL, DISABLE_TELEMETRY, any variable that stops feature-flag fetching) plus CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL, which overrides subagent effort. Report them, change nothing 4. Add one rule to ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md: consult the advisor before a large plan, when an error repeats, and before calling a long task done Show me every change as a diff first. No edits until I say go." ↳

Claude Code tip: once Opus 5.5 is your main model, stop leaving Fable 5.1 sitting idle and stop burning Opus tokens on tasks Sonnet 5.5 can swarm put it on call with /advisor run /advisor fable Opus 5.5 plans and ships the code Sonnet 5.5 swarms the routine work at medium effort Fable 5.1 reads the full session, every tool call included, and only speaks up at three points: → before a plan: is this the right approach? → when the same error comes back: am I digging in the wrong place? → before "done": what did I miss? Fable 5.1 reviews. Sonnet 5.5 executes. Opus 5.5 ships Jev engineering is the same move one layer down: the forks that need no thinker (which file, which tool, retry or stop) go to Jev in under half a second, and the big model only sees the ones that split Plan on high. Delegate on medium. Keep Fable on call. - the full tree > Opus 5.5 on high runs the main session > explorer reads the code > worker edits and runs tests > researcher pulls the docs > all three on Sonnet 5.5 at medium effort > Fable 5.1 on call as the advisor paste the tree and this prompt into Claude Code ↓ "Rebuild my Claude Code setup around this tree: 1. Check ~/.claude/agents and .claude/agents for subagents that already fit explorer, worker and researcher. > Draft new ones only for missing roles > Give each model: sonnet, effort: medium > Skip any that pin a different model and list them 2. Set the main session to high via effortLevel in ~/.claude/settings.json, and set advisorModel to fable 3. Find anything that keeps the advisor off (CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADVISOR_TOOL, DISABLE_TELEMETRY, any variable that stops feature-flag fetching) plus CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL, which overrides subagent effort. Report them, change nothing 4. Add one rule to ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md: consult the advisor before a large plan, when an error repeats, and before calling a long task done Show me every change as a diff first. No edits until I say go." ↳

mirku

421,711 Aufrufe • vor 14 Tagen