Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Sonnet 5.5 is here! In Claude Code, users get ~30% more tasks done compared to Sonnet 5. It's smarter, so it needs fewer tokens for the same work. Here it rakes a yard of leaves using tool calls. 24s faster than Sonnet 5, with 6K fewer tokens. It leaves... show more

cat

100,080 subscribers

48,305 views • 24 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Sonnet 5.5 is smarter, more efficient, and 30% faster than Sonnet 5. It costs up to 30% less for most work, so your Claude Code usage goes further too. Use it for well-scoped everyday tasks like fixing bugs and quickly iterating on features.

Sonnet 5.5 is smarter, more efficient, and 30% faster than Sonnet 5. It costs up to 30% less for most work, so your Claude Code usage goes further too. Use it for well-scoped everyday tasks like fixing bugs and quickly iterating on features.

ClaudeDevs

587,914 views • 24 days ago

Introducing Claude Sonnet 5.5, the second model in the Claude 5.5 family. It’s a clear upgrade over Sonnet 5, runs more than 30% faster, and costs up to 30% less for most work.

Introducing Claude Sonnet 5.5, the second model in the Claude 5.5 family. It’s a clear upgrade over Sonnet 5, runs more than 30% faster, and costs up to 30% less for most work.

Claude

12,766,494 views • 24 days ago

it's f*cking insane.. Anthropic just dropped a Claude Code setup that makes tokens up to 97% cheaper Opus brains, Sonnet bill: > Sonnet runs your session and writes the code > Haiku subagents grab the small tasks > Opus steps in only when Sonnet gets stuck > it checks the work, digs into the problem and puts Sonnet back on track $19.50 saved on every 1M tokens a Haiku 5.5 subagent writes, compared with Opus 5.5 one command sets it up: npx claude-code-templates@latest --setting model/sonnet-opus-advisor-haiku-subagents the easiest money you'll save on Claude Code this year

it's f*cking insane.. Anthropic just dropped a Claude Code setup that makes tokens up to 97% cheaper Opus brains, Sonnet bill: > Sonnet runs your session and writes the code > Haiku subagents grab the small tasks > Opus steps in only when Sonnet gets stuck > it checks the work, digs into the problem and puts Sonnet back on track $19.50 saved on every 1M tokens a Haiku 5.5 subagent writes, compared with Opus 5.5 one command sets it up: npx claude-code-templates@latest --setting model/sonnet-opus-advisor-haiku-subagents the easiest money you'll save on Claude Code this year

Mnimiy

55,980 views • 13 days ago

New Claude Sonnet 5 performs at GPT 5.5 level 6x cheaper! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics crash demos Prompts: - A car crashes into a brick wall - A wrecking ball destroys a house - A catapult throws a rock at a castle wall Outputs: Sonnet 5: 15,047 tokens, $0.15 Opus 4.8: 23,063 tokens, $0.58 Sonnet 4.6: 25,824 tokens, $0.39 GPT 5.5: 31,152 tokens, $0.94 Sonnet 5 did as well as Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 on all three tests. In the wrecking ball test, it beat Opus 4.8. The cable moves smoothly and every hit connects. In the catapult test, it beat GPT 5.5. The rock always lands inside the wall. Sonnet 5 still needs better detail and graphics. But it used fewer tokens than every other model

New Claude Sonnet 5 performs at GPT 5.5 level 6x cheaper! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics crash demos Prompts: - A car crashes into a brick wall - A wrecking ball destroys a house - A catapult throws a rock at a castle wall Outputs: Sonnet 5: 15,047 tokens, $0.15 Opus 4.8: 23,063 tokens, $0.58 Sonnet 4.6: 25,824 tokens, $0.39 GPT 5.5: 31,152 tokens, $0.94 Sonnet 5 did as well as Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 on all three tests. In the wrecking ball test, it beat Opus 4.8. The cable moves smoothly and every hit connects. In the catapult test, it beat GPT 5.5. The rock always lands inside the wall. Sonnet 5 still needs better detail and graphics. But it used fewer tokens than every other model

atomic.chat

730,766 views • 3 months ago

Opus 4.6 lets you set the effort level Not every task needs high reasoning. For simpler tasks you can set it to low or medium. Claude thinks less (or skips it entirely), makes fewer tool calls, and gives more concise answers Lower effort = faster responses with fewer tokens!

Opus 4.6 lets you set the effort level Not every task needs high reasoning. For simpler tasks you can set it to low or medium. Claude thinks less (or skips it entirely), makes fewer tool calls, and gives more concise answers Lower effort = faster responses with fewer tokens!

Lydia Hallie ✨

34,866 views • 8 months ago

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

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

Dan McAteer

666,124 views • 3 months ago

Everyone is dunking on Sonnet 5 for losing to Opus 4.8 on benchmarks. They're all making the same mistake, judging a teammate by a solo test. Sonnet 5 was never built to win alone. Set the model to Sonnet 5, effort to Ultracode, and any complex task auto-kicks a dynamic workflow where it plans, spawns agents, executes and checks its own work, fast and cheap. When Fable 5 comes back, the setup gets stupid good. Fable 5 decides what to build, Sonnet 5 actually builds it. You stop paying flagship prices to do grunt work.

Everyone is dunking on Sonnet 5 for losing to Opus 4.8 on benchmarks. They're all making the same mistake, judging a teammate by a solo test. Sonnet 5 was never built to win alone. Set the model to Sonnet 5, effort to Ultracode, and any complex task auto-kicks a dynamic workflow where it plans, spawns agents, executes and checks its own work, fast and cheap. When Fable 5 comes back, the setup gets stupid good. Fable 5 decides what to build, Sonnet 5 actually builds it. You stop paying flagship prices to do grunt work.

0xMarioNawfal

98,313 views • 3 months ago

I think I want to eat Sonnet’s tree 🍊😂 Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GPT-6.1 Sol I’m going with Sonnet this time. The mandarins look juicier, the greens feel more natural, and the colors are more realistic overall. And that soft, bouncy wobble when you shake the tree makes me want to poke it Sol did a pretty good job too, especially for the price. But next to Sonnet, its tree looks more like shiny plastic than jelly Estimated API cost: Sonnet - $10.74 Sol - $4.01 Almost 2.7x the price. Would you pay extra for this look? 👀

I think I want to eat Sonnet’s tree 🍊😂 Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GPT-6.1 Sol I’m going with Sonnet this time. The mandarins look juicier, the greens feel more natural, and the colors are more realistic overall. And that soft, bouncy wobble when you shake the tree makes me want to poke it Sol did a pretty good job too, especially for the price. But next to Sonnet, its tree looks more like shiny plastic than jelly Estimated API cost: Sonnet - $10.74 Sol - $4.01 Almost 2.7x the price. Would you pay extra for this look? 👀

Vib3Coded

18,445 views • 20 days ago

THIS IS F*CKING BRILLIANT. Anthropic’s docs describe one of the smartest ways to run Opus three models work on one task and each does only the part it’s cheapest at. start Claude Code like this: claude -> model sonnet -> advisor opus you stop paying Opus prices for work that doesn’t need Opus > Sonnet runs the session and edits the code > Haiku 5.5 searches the repo and docs, at up to 40x less per token than Opus 5.5 > Opus waits as the advisor and reads the whole session, tool calls included Claude usually calls Opus at three points: > before it locks a plan > when the same error comes back > right before it says it’s done Sonnet drives. Haiku scouts. Opus signs off and if you go one step lower, most of an agent’s day is tiny choices like picking a file or a tool, or deciding whether to retry. Jev takes those first, so Sonnet and Opus only see the moments that are really open the whole setup Sonnet runs the main session Explore on Haiku 5.5 searches and pulls docs, read-only Opus on call as the advisor give Claude Code this setup and the prompt below ↓ “Set up my Claude Code exactly like this: Main model Sonnet, advisor Opus, saved as advisorModel in my settings. One read-only subagent named exactly Explore, on claude-haiku-5-5, to replace the built-in one. One line in CLAUDE.md: ask the advisor before locking a plan, after the same error twice, and before calling a task done, not more often. Check what could turn the advisor off (CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADVISOR_TOOL, DISABLE_TELEMETRY) and only report it. Show every change as a diff first. Don’t edit anything until I say go.” before you turn it on: every advisor call re-reads the whole transcript with no cache. on a 200k session that’s about $0.80 in input, against $0.04 for a normal request. keep it to a few calls the built-in Explore agent runs on your main model unless a subagent is named exactly Explore. any other name does nothing turning the advisor on or off keeps your prompt cache. switching models rebuilds it it needs the Anthropic API, and it stays off if telemetry is disabled bookmark it before your next long session

THIS IS F*CKING BRILLIANT. Anthropic’s docs describe one of the smartest ways to run Opus three models work on one task and each does only the part it’s cheapest at. start Claude Code like this: claude -> model sonnet -> advisor opus you stop paying Opus prices for work that doesn’t need Opus > Sonnet runs the session and edits the code > Haiku 5.5 searches the repo and docs, at up to 40x less per token than Opus 5.5 > Opus waits as the advisor and reads the whole session, tool calls included Claude usually calls Opus at three points: > before it locks a plan > when the same error comes back > right before it says it’s done Sonnet drives. Haiku scouts. Opus signs off and if you go one step lower, most of an agent’s day is tiny choices like picking a file or a tool, or deciding whether to retry. Jev takes those first, so Sonnet and Opus only see the moments that are really open the whole setup Sonnet runs the main session Explore on Haiku 5.5 searches and pulls docs, read-only Opus on call as the advisor give Claude Code this setup and the prompt below ↓ “Set up my Claude Code exactly like this: Main model Sonnet, advisor Opus, saved as advisorModel in my settings. One read-only subagent named exactly Explore, on claude-haiku-5-5, to replace the built-in one. One line in CLAUDE.md: ask the advisor before locking a plan, after the same error twice, and before calling a task done, not more often. Check what could turn the advisor off (CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADVISOR_TOOL, DISABLE_TELEMETRY) and only report it. Show every change as a diff first. Don’t edit anything until I say go.” before you turn it on: every advisor call re-reads the whole transcript with no cache. on a 200k session that’s about $0.80 in input, against $0.04 for a normal request. keep it to a few calls the built-in Explore agent runs on your main model unless a subagent is named exactly Explore. any other name does nothing turning the advisor on or off keeps your prompt cache. switching models rebuilds it it needs the Anthropic API, and it stays off if telemetry is disabled bookmark it before your next long session

rvaniaaa

62,223 views • 10 days ago

Fable 5.1 is 8x better than Fable 5 at controlling robot arms. It puts a block into a bowl 40% of the time, up from 5% (20 runs each), using 1.5x fewer tokens. 🧵

Fable 5.1 is 8x better than Fable 5 at controlling robot arms. It puts a block into a bowl 40% of the time, up from 5% (20 runs each), using 1.5x fewer tokens. 🧵

Jay Chooi

145,940 views • 1 month ago

We just launched Claude Sonnet 4.5 and “Imagine with Claude”, a 5-day preview that creates dynamic experiences for you in real-time (and the first product I’ve worked on at Anthropic!). It pioneers the concept of “model-as-backend”, using a model to not only generate interfaces on the fly but also power all the functionality behind it – all made possible by our newest model, Claude Sonnet 4.5. Here’s a "choose your own adventure" version of my founder journey, as retold by Imagine with Claude:

We just launched Claude Sonnet 4.5 and “Imagine with Claude”, a 5-day preview that creates dynamic experiences for you in real-time (and the first product I’ve worked on at Anthropic!). It pioneers the concept of “model-as-backend”, using a model to not only generate interfaces on the fly but also power all the functionality behind it – all made possible by our newest model, Claude Sonnet 4.5. Here’s a "choose your own adventure" version of my founder journey, as retold by Imagine with Claude:

Sean Strong

115,727 views • 1 year ago

Claude Fable 5 creates a Spider-Man web-swinging game in the Godot game engine Fable looks promising so far when it comes to creating games with Godot. It seems to produce far fewer errors than GPT-5.5 when coding in Godot

Claude Fable 5 creates a Spider-Man web-swinging game in the Godot game engine Fable looks promising so far when it comes to creating games with Godot. It seems to produce far fewer errors than GPT-5.5 when coding in Godot

AiBattle

276,236 views • 3 months ago

$35 OF FREE CLAUDE OPUS 5 CREDITS FOR A WEEK, NO CARD ANYWHERE • the credit > Sign up with Google and the trial activates on its own, nothing to claim manually: > Opus 5 sits alongside Opus 4.8, Sonnet 4.6 and Haiku on the same key. > The window runs a week from activation. • wiring it up > base url: > model id: claude-opus-5 > In OpenCode Desktop hit Ctrl+, and add a custom provider with the id aerolink. > The same key drops into Codex, Cursor and Claude Code with nothing else changed. One key, not locked to one client -> every tool that takes a custom OpenAI-compatible endpoint reads it the same way. It routes through a third-party proxy rather than an official Anthropic channel, so keep client work off it ↓

$35 OF FREE CLAUDE OPUS 5 CREDITS FOR A WEEK, NO CARD ANYWHERE • the credit > Sign up with Google and the trial activates on its own, nothing to claim manually: > Opus 5 sits alongside Opus 4.8, Sonnet 4.6 and Haiku on the same key. > The window runs a week from activation. • wiring it up > base url: > model id: claude-opus-5 > In OpenCode Desktop hit Ctrl+, and add a custom provider with the id aerolink. > The same key drops into Codex, Cursor and Claude Code with nothing else changed. One key, not locked to one client -> every tool that takes a custom OpenAI-compatible endpoint reads it the same way. It routes through a third-party proxy rather than an official Anthropic channel, so keep client work off it ↓

slash1s

21,111 views • 2 months ago

Now it all makes sense, Claude Sonnet 4.5 can keep its coding focus for nonstop 30 hours. And Dario Amodei just said few days back that, "The vast majority of code that is used to support Claude and to design the next Claude is now written by Claude. It's just the vast majority of it within Anthropic. And other fast moving companies, the same is true." The shift has started in all tech companies. --- From 'Axios' YT Channel.

Now it all makes sense, Claude Sonnet 4.5 can keep its coding focus for nonstop 30 hours. And Dario Amodei just said few days back that, "The vast majority of code that is used to support Claude and to design the next Claude is now written by Claude. It's just the vast majority of it within Anthropic. And other fast moving companies, the same is true." The shift has started in all tech companies. --- From 'Axios' YT Channel.

Rohan Paul

227,906 views • 1 year ago

an Anthropic engineer just showed a cleaner way to run Sonnet 5.5 + Opus 5.5 without wasting turns the expensive mistake is letting the wrong model stay in the loop too long. so I turned the routing logic into a prompt: → clear, scoped work stays on Sonnet 5.5 → failed checks trigger escalation → Opus gets a clean handoff, not the full transcript → cache stays warm whenever possible the numbers get weird fast: → 20K context: Opus is 1.88x per turn → 150K: 1.49x → 400K: 1.26x a late 300K switch costs $1.50 just to rebuild cache. the same handoff at 20K costs $0.10. the point is not to use Opus more. it is to make Claude prove when Opus is actually needed ↓ ↳

an Anthropic engineer just showed a cleaner way to run Sonnet 5.5 + Opus 5.5 without wasting turns the expensive mistake is letting the wrong model stay in the loop too long. so I turned the routing logic into a prompt: → clear, scoped work stays on Sonnet 5.5 → failed checks trigger escalation → Opus gets a clean handoff, not the full transcript → cache stays warm whenever possible the numbers get weird fast: → 20K context: Opus is 1.88x per turn → 150K: 1.49x → 400K: 1.26x a late 300K switch costs $1.50 just to rebuild cache. the same handoff at 20K costs $0.10. the point is not to use Opus more. it is to make Claude prove when Opus is actually needed ↓ ↳

fleyta

14,951 views • 17 days ago

Claude 3.7 Sonnet is king. I was having trouble adding mobile controls to my bolt.new project last night but with the latest update, it created these glass-like controls in one go. Try it here: I once spent a week manually coding similar controls 🥲

Claude 3.7 Sonnet is king. I was having trouble adding mobile controls to my bolt.new project last night but with the latest update, it created these glass-like controls in one go. Try it here: I once spent a week manually coding similar controls 🥲

Ian Curtis

49,633 views • 1 year ago

AI coding agents re-explore the same codebase every single session. Repowise indexes a repo once and gives Claude Code, Codex, or any MCP agent a real dependency graph, git history, and a bug-predictive code health score. No re-grepping the same files. No stale docs. No guessing which file is about to break. The loop is simple: measure every file > locate where the risk concentrates > generate the exact refactoring plan to fix it Indexing a repo takes under 30 seconds and updates automatically on every commit. Paired benchmarks show up to 96% fewer tokens spent loading context and 70% fewer agent tool calls, at the same answer quality.

AI coding agents re-explore the same codebase every single session. Repowise indexes a repo once and gives Claude Code, Codex, or any MCP agent a real dependency graph, git history, and a bug-predictive code health score. No re-grepping the same files. No stale docs. No guessing which file is about to break. The loop is simple: measure every file > locate where the risk concentrates > generate the exact refactoring plan to fix it Indexing a repo takes under 30 seconds and updates automatically on every commit. Paired benchmarks show up to 96% fewer tokens spent loading context and 70% fewer agent tool calls, at the same answer quality.

Simplifying AI

17,561 views • 2 months ago

So... I literally oneshotted this code with Claude Sonnet 3.7 for replicating the exact same browser sandbox runtime that Manus uses. And I am going to open-source it, welcome contributions for building out the React VNC client, integrating to browser use, agent loop, etc. But we need a name first, should we call it... - Autonomous Neural Universal System - Magnus - or ?

So... I literally oneshotted this code with Claude Sonnet 3.7 for replicating the exact same browser sandbox runtime that Manus uses. And I am going to open-source it, welcome contributions for building out the React VNC client, integrating to browser use, agent loop, etc. But we need a name first, should we call it... - Autonomous Neural Universal System - Magnus - or ?

jian

419,367 views • 1 year ago

4.96$ to burst a watermelon with rubber bands right in my browser 🍉😂 Asked Claude Sonnet 5.5 Extra to recreate that classic experiment. Keep adding rubber bands, and the watermelon gets squeezed tighter in the middle until it bursts. Flesh, seeds, rind - everything goes flying You know how it ends. Still gotta add one more rubber band lol Estimated API cost - 4.96$

4.96$ to burst a watermelon with rubber bands right in my browser 🍉😂 Asked Claude Sonnet 5.5 Extra to recreate that classic experiment. Keep adding rubber bands, and the watermelon gets squeezed tighter in the middle until it bursts. Flesh, seeds, rind - everything goes flying You know how it ends. Still gotta add one more rubber band lol Estimated API cost - 4.96$

Vib3Coded

420,876 views • 24 days ago

By tomorrow, everyone will be using this: Anthropic just revealed the ultimate power move for Claude Code The concept: have Opus 5.5 design the master plan as a script, then deploy parallel swarms of the new Haiku 5.5 Massive scale operations with zero wasted Opus compute: the script manages the execution loop so Opus only reviews the final diff Simply boot up Claude Code with these parameters: claude --model opus --effort ultracode Here is the task distribution: -> Opus 5.5 translates your target into a fully runnable workflow script -> Haiku 5.5 scans all files concurrently at 340 tokens/sec to spot candidates -> Sonnet 5.5 applies each patch and validates findings within an isolated workspace -> You eliminate wasting Opus context on dozens of agent log transcripts Opus is involved at only three specific steps: -> writing the initial workflow script before execution -> analyzing verified results once the swarm wraps up -> giving final approval prior to committing any code to git Opus architects | Haiku audits | Sonnet delivers JEV engineering applies the exact same principle a level deeper: logic paths that require no deep reasoning (choosing files, picking tools, handling retries/stops) pass through JEV in milliseconds, leaving heavy models to focus only on complex branches The complete architecture: Opus 5.5 orchestrates the core session and generates workflow.js pipeline() fans out instances of Haiku 5.5 to inspect every file parallel() schema validators eliminate false alarms directly in V8 Sonnet 5.5 applies fixes within dedicated, isolated worktrees verify double-checks all code diffs prior to summary generation Opus 5.5 processes exclusively the results that survived validation JEV routes lightweight micro-decisions in milliseconds Feed this architecture and prompt directly into Claude Code Reconfigure my Claude Code setup following this tree: 1. Execute the primary session using Opus 5.5 with ultracode enabled 2. Assign read-only scanning phases to Haiku 5.5 across all workflows, while routing code modification steps to Sonnet 5.5, running each edit inside its own isolated copy 3. Update CLAUDE.md with a new rule: assign a separate verifier agent to every issue before reporting, and terminate fix loops after two iterations without progress 4. Route fast, deterministic branching (tool selection, path routing, retry logic) via JEV Present every modification as a diff upfront do not execute changes until approved Bookmark this to stay one step ahead

By tomorrow, everyone will be using this: Anthropic just revealed the ultimate power move for Claude Code The concept: have Opus 5.5 design the master plan as a script, then deploy parallel swarms of the new Haiku 5.5 Massive scale operations with zero wasted Opus compute: the script manages the execution loop so Opus only reviews the final diff Simply boot up Claude Code with these parameters: claude --model opus --effort ultracode Here is the task distribution: -> Opus 5.5 translates your target into a fully runnable workflow script -> Haiku 5.5 scans all files concurrently at 340 tokens/sec to spot candidates -> Sonnet 5.5 applies each patch and validates findings within an isolated workspace -> You eliminate wasting Opus context on dozens of agent log transcripts Opus is involved at only three specific steps: -> writing the initial workflow script before execution -> analyzing verified results once the swarm wraps up -> giving final approval prior to committing any code to git Opus architects | Haiku audits | Sonnet delivers JEV engineering applies the exact same principle a level deeper: logic paths that require no deep reasoning (choosing files, picking tools, handling retries/stops) pass through JEV in milliseconds, leaving heavy models to focus only on complex branches The complete architecture: Opus 5.5 orchestrates the core session and generates workflow.js pipeline() fans out instances of Haiku 5.5 to inspect every file parallel() schema validators eliminate false alarms directly in V8 Sonnet 5.5 applies fixes within dedicated, isolated worktrees verify double-checks all code diffs prior to summary generation Opus 5.5 processes exclusively the results that survived validation JEV routes lightweight micro-decisions in milliseconds Feed this architecture and prompt directly into Claude Code Reconfigure my Claude Code setup following this tree: 1. Execute the primary session using Opus 5.5 with ultracode enabled 2. Assign read-only scanning phases to Haiku 5.5 across all workflows, while routing code modification steps to Sonnet 5.5, running each edit inside its own isolated copy 3. Update CLAUDE.md with a new rule: assign a separate verifier agent to every issue before reporting, and terminate fix loops after two iterations without progress 4. Route fast, deterministic branching (tool selection, path routing, retry logic) via JEV Present every modification as a diff upfront do not execute changes until approved Bookmark this to stay one step ahead

Bober_smart

32,522 views • 5 days ago