Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

this is straight f*cking gold for anyone on Claude Code you already pay for Fable 5.1, and while Opus 5.5 does all the work it just sits there one command puts it on your session as a senior reviewer: /advisor fable Opus 5.5 keeps writing the code Fable 5.1...

AnnatarXBT's profile picture

Annatar.md

2,587 subscribers

73,357 görüntüleme • 5 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

EğitimBilim & Teknoloji
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

9 Yorum

Vipul Kumar Kewat profil fotoğrafı
Vipul Kumar Kewat4 gün önce

I like the separation of responsibilities: Opus handles implementation, the reviewer challenges major decisions, and lightweight agents handle exploration and repetitive tool choices.

Brian Hadu profil fotoğrafı
Brian Hadu4 gün önce

if Opus 5.5 can autonomously write code, it might reduce review times significantly

The Tx Queue profil fotoğrafı
The Tx Queue4 gün önce

/advisor fable. the part that matters is it gets the whole session, not a summary. bounded review with real context is the difference between a second model catching things and a second model nodding along.

Marshall Livingston profil fotoğrafı
Marshall Livingston4 gün önce

@Cy5un

ZERO profil fotoğrafı
ZERO4 gün önce

larper

安叫兽|Bird🕊️ 🔶 BNB profil fotoğrafı
安叫兽|Bird🕊️ 🔶 BNB4 gün önce

这个分工听着挺顺手，审阅者不抢着写代码就好

Watera黄 profil fotoğrafı
Watera黄4 gün önce

looks amazingly cool, I am trying to build a similar one for codex

𖥧 sophie ᯓ★ profil fotoğrafı
𖥧 sophie ᯓ★4 gün önce

wait the fable just reads and doesnt write? thats actually genius

tim777 profil fotoğrafı
tim7774 gün önce

opus 5.5 f#cking GOD

Benzer Videolar

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." ↳
0:40

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

51,329 görüntüleme • 4 gün önce

Claude Code tip: once Opus 5.5 is your main model, stop leaving Fable 5.1 sitting idle put it on call with /advisor run /advisor fable Opus 5.5 keeps writing the code Fable 5.1 reads the full session, every tool call included, and only speaks up at three points: → before a plan: is this the right approach? → when the same error comes back: am I digging in the wrong place? → before "done": what did I miss? Fable 5.1 reviews. Opus 5.5 ships Jev engineering is the same move one layer down: the forks that need no thinker (which file, which tool, retry or stop) go to Jev in under half a second, and the big model only sees the ones that split - the full tree > Opus 5.5 on high runs the main session > explorer reads the code > worker edits and runs tests > researcher pulls the docs > all three on medium > Fable 5.1 on call as the advisor paste the tree and this prompt into Claude Code ↓ "Rebuild my Claude Code setup around this tree: 1. Check ~/.claude/agents and .claude/agents for subagents that already fit explorer, worker and researcher. > Draft new ones only for missing roles > Give each model: opus, effort: medium > Skip any that pin a different model and list them 2. Set the main session to high via effortLevel in ~/.claude/settings.json, and set advisorModel to fable 3. Find anything that keeps the advisor off (CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADVISOR_TOOL, DISABLE_TELEMETRY, any variable that stops feature-flag fetching) plus CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL, which overrides subagent effort. Report them, change nothing 4. Add one rule to ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md: consult the advisor before a large plan, when an error repeats, and before calling a long task done Show me every change as a diff first. No edits until I say go." ↳
0:31

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

delost

693,243 görüntüleme • 6 gün önce

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

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 görüntüleme • 3 gün önce

This is f*cking insane. This tip saved me thousands of dollars. run Opus 5.5, Sonnet 5.5, and Fable 5.1 together, and stop burning Opus on work it was never needed for. the whole idea in one line: the strong model plans, the mid-tier model executes, Fable stays quiet until it's actually needed. roles, broken down: Opus 5.5, high effort, owns the plan and ships the final code Sonnet 5.5, medium effort, splits into explorer (reads the codebase), worker (edits files, runs tests), researcher (pulls docs) Fable 5.1, called through /advisor fable, reads everything happening in the session but stays silent unless something's actually wrong three moments where Fable speaks: → a plan goes out: is this actually the right call? → the same failure shows up again: is the search going nowhere? → the task gets marked finished: did something get skipped? Jev engineering does the same thing one level down. the forks that don't need real thought, which file, which tool, keep going or stop, go straight to Jev and come back in under half a second. the big models only ever see the forks that genuinely need a decision. anyone still running one model for everything is paying Opus prices to decide whether a file exists. drop this into Claude Code: "Rebuild my Claude Code setup around this structure: Look through ~/.claude/agents and .claude/agents for subagents already covering explorer, worker, and researcher. Only create new ones for roles that are missing. Set model: sonnet, effort: medium on each. If an existing subagent is locked to a different model, leave it as is and just list it. In ~/.claude/settings.json, set effortLevel to high and advisorModel to fable. Check for anything disabling the advisor, CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADVISOR_TOOL, DISABLE_TELEMETRY, or anything blocking feature-flag fetches, plus CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL, which can override subagent effort settings. Report what you find. Don't change any of it yet. Add one line to ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md: check in with the advisor before a big plan, when the same error shows up twice, and before marking a long task done. Show every change as a diff first. Wait for my go-ahead before touching anything."
0:20

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

rvaniaaa

242,307 görüntüleme • 2 gün önce

Codex tip: once GPT-6.1 Sol is your main model, stop running Astra on every turn put Astra on call as an architect agent GPT-6.1 Sol keeps writing the code Astra only gets spawned 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? Astra reviews. Sol 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 > GPT-6.1 Sol on high runs the main session > explorer reads the code on Luna > worker edits and runs tests on Sol > researcher pulls the docs on Luna > all three on medium > Astra on call as the architect > auto_review checks every approval paste the tree and this prompt into Codex ↓ "Rebuild my Codex setup around this tree: 1. Check ~/.codex/agents and .codex/agents for agents that already fit explorer, worker and researcher. > Draft new TOML files only for missing roles > explorer and researcher on gpt-6-luna, worker on gpt-6.1-sol, all with model_reasoning_effort medium > Add an architect agent on gpt-6-astra, model_reasoning_effort high, whose only job is reviewing plans, repeated errors and finished work > Skip any that pin a different model and list them 2. In ~/.codex/config.toml set model to gpt-6.1-sol, model_reasoning_effort to high and approvals_reviewer to auto_review 3. Find anything that would override this (active profiles, flags in my shell aliases, agents.default_subagent_model). Report it, change nothing 4. Add one rule to AGENTS.md: spawn the architect 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." ↳
0:29

Codex tip: once GPT-6.1 Sol is your main model, stop running Astra on every turn put Astra on call as an architect agent GPT-6.1 Sol keeps writing the code Astra only gets spawned 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? Astra reviews. Sol 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 > GPT-6.1 Sol on high runs the main session > explorer reads the code on Luna > worker edits and runs tests on Sol > researcher pulls the docs on Luna > all three on medium > Astra on call as the architect > auto_review checks every approval paste the tree and this prompt into Codex ↓ "Rebuild my Codex setup around this tree: 1. Check ~/.codex/agents and .codex/agents for agents that already fit explorer, worker and researcher. > Draft new TOML files only for missing roles > explorer and researcher on gpt-6-luna, worker on gpt-6.1-sol, all with model_reasoning_effort medium > Add an architect agent on gpt-6-astra, model_reasoning_effort high, whose only job is reviewing plans, repeated errors and finished work > Skip any that pin a different model and list them 2. In ~/.codex/config.toml set model to gpt-6.1-sol, model_reasoning_effort to high and approvals_reviewer to auto_review 3. Find anything that would override this (active profiles, flags in my shell aliases, agents.default_subagent_model). Report it, change nothing 4. Add one rule to AGENTS.md: spawn the architect 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

1,017,721 görüntüleme • 4 gün önce

Anthropic just revealed a trick to improve how Claude Opus 5.5 works. The idea is that Opus does the work while Fable 5.1 acts as a second opinion. All you have to do is open Claude Code and run: /advisor fable When Opus consults Fable, it gets the full context of the session, including the tools used and their results. It can be especially useful: → Before creating a large plan → When the same error keeps happening → Before marking a task as finished This gives you a second review without having to copy context between conversations. The feature is still experimental, requires access to Fable, and uses additional tokens. 🔖 Save this for your next session.
0:31

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

Dean W. Perkins

48,271 görüntüleme • 1 gün önce

This is the best way to use Claude Fable in Claude Code without immediately hitting your limits. 1. Model set to Fable 5 2. Reasoning on Max 3. Instruct Claude to run a dynamic workflow where: 3a. Fable is the orchestrator 3b. Opus does the reasoning heavy phases Fable is so overpowered that you don't need its intelligence for every step. Let it orchestrate Opus or even Sonnet.
0:24

This is the best way to use Claude Fable in Claude Code without immediately hitting your limits. 1. Model set to Fable 5 2. Reasoning on Max 3. Instruct Claude to run a dynamic workflow where: 3a. Fable is the orchestrator 3b. Opus does the reasoning heavy phases Fable is so overpowered that you don't need its intelligence for every step. Let it orchestrate Opus or even Sonnet.

Dan McAteer

912,025 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Jev + Opus 5.5 is the most underrated setup in AI right now, and i don't get why nobody's talking about it. I stopped letting Opus make every small decision in my agents. Jev makes them now. My Opus bill dropped ~500% on the same tasks, same results. Here's what Jev handles: - which files and notes to load before Opus sees anything - which effort level each task actually needs - what to do when a tool fails - which tests to run, and when to stop Opus only gets called for the hard reasoning. Every decision is a typed result the host checks before it runs. The exact prompt to set this up in your workflow is below.
0:20

Jev + Opus 5.5 is the most underrated setup in AI right now, and i don't get why nobody's talking about it. I stopped letting Opus make every small decision in my agents. Jev makes them now. My Opus bill dropped ~500% on the same tasks, same results. Here's what Jev handles: - which files and notes to load before Opus sees anything - which effort level each task actually needs - what to do when a tool fails - which tests to run, and when to stop Opus only gets called for the hard reasoning. Every decision is a typed result the host checks before it runs. The exact prompt to set this up in your workflow is below.

Anatoli Kopadze

74,966 görüntüleme • 7 gün önce

i gave the exact same prompt to Opus 5 and Fable 5 and here's what came out Opus 5 dropped yesterday and my feed was instantly full of comparison posts but i wanted to check it myself so i gave it one task build 3d Flappy Bird first thing everyone was saying Opus is 2x cheaper than Fable BUT.. building the game on Max effort cost me 250k tokens and 1 hour on Opus and 130k on Fable but Fable did it in half the time Opus gave me volume control plus 3 separate graphics presets to choose from, Fable gave none of that in Opus the environment shifts dynamically as you play in Fable it's basically the same frame the whole run maybe a day/night change here and there graphics, animations, glow, all of it goes to Opus and now that limits jumped 50% for the near future while Fable went paid for me the call is obvious right now Opus same prompt start to finish zero changes to code or commands want it? i can send it over
0:31

i gave the exact same prompt to Opus 5 and Fable 5 and here's what came out Opus 5 dropped yesterday and my feed was instantly full of comparison posts but i wanted to check it myself so i gave it one task build 3d Flappy Bird first thing everyone was saying Opus is 2x cheaper than Fable BUT.. building the game on Max effort cost me 250k tokens and 1 hour on Opus and 130k on Fable but Fable did it in half the time Opus gave me volume control plus 3 separate graphics presets to choose from, Fable gave none of that in Opus the environment shifts dynamically as you play in Fable it's basically the same frame the whole run maybe a day/night change here and there graphics, animations, glow, all of it goes to Opus and now that limits jumped 50% for the near future while Fable went paid for me the call is obvious right now Opus same prompt start to finish zero changes to code or commands want it? i can send it over

savip.

45,764 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

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
0:30

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 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

$120 OF CLAUDE OPUS 5 AND OPUS 4.8 ON A NEW ACCOUNT, NO CARD ANYWHERE • the credit > $100 on signup, $120 once a referral lands, plus a daily check-in bonus: > GitHub sign-in only now. > base url: • the four models > claude-opus-5 and claude-opus-5-thinking at $3/M in, $3/M out. > claude-opus-4-8 and claude-opus-4-8-thinking at $1/M in, $5/M out. > 1M context, OpenAI and Anthropic formats both accepted. Anthropic lists Opus 5 at $5 in and $25 out -> output at $3 here is eight times under that, which is the whole reason the balance goes as far as it does. Set the model to claude-opus-4-8 first. People are hitting 502s and missing-model errors on the opus-5 IDs, and latency sits at 16 to 19 seconds either way ↓
0:22

$120 OF CLAUDE OPUS 5 AND OPUS 4.8 ON A NEW ACCOUNT, NO CARD ANYWHERE • the credit > $100 on signup, $120 once a referral lands, plus a daily check-in bonus: > GitHub sign-in only now. > base url: • the four models > claude-opus-5 and claude-opus-5-thinking at $3/M in, $3/M out. > claude-opus-4-8 and claude-opus-4-8-thinking at $1/M in, $5/M out. > 1M context, OpenAI and Anthropic formats both accepted. Anthropic lists Opus 5 at $5 in and $25 out -> output at $3 here is eight times under that, which is the whole reason the balance goes as far as it does. Set the model to claude-opus-4-8 first. People are hitting 502s and missing-model errors on the opus-5 IDs, and latency sits at 16 to 19 seconds either way ↓

slash1s

13,400 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

The new Fable 5.1 built three games and did it 7% cheaper! We gave the same prompts through Atomic Agent: ✦ Sticky ball that rolls up everything in its path ✦ Capybara surfing down a river, Subway Surfers style ✦ Dumpling running an endless conveyor dodge Outputs: ✦ Claude Fable 5, via Atomic Agent: $7.65 ✦ Claude Fable 5.1, via Atomic Agent: $7.08 Run it through an agent and that cache discount is where the money hides. The loop reads the file, watches it break, and pulls the whole context back in to fix it, over and over. Every one of those re-reads costs a quarter on 5.1 of what it cost on 5. Same games on screen, and the newer version just spends less to get there. Across three builds the loop paid for the upgrade on its own.
0:33

The new Fable 5.1 built three games and did it 7% cheaper! We gave the same prompts through Atomic Agent: ✦ Sticky ball that rolls up everything in its path ✦ Capybara surfing down a river, Subway Surfers style ✦ Dumpling running an endless conveyor dodge Outputs: ✦ Claude Fable 5, via Atomic Agent: $7.65 ✦ Claude Fable 5.1, via Atomic Agent: $7.08 Run it through an agent and that cache discount is where the money hides. The loop reads the file, watches it break, and pulls the whole context back in to fix it, over and over. Every one of those re-reads costs a quarter on 5.1 of what it cost on 5. Same games on screen, and the newer version just spends less to get there. Across three builds the loop paid for the upgrade on its own.

Atomic Agent

20,255 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

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 görüntüleme • 12 gün önce

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 görüntüleme • 7 gün önce

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.
0:21

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 görüntüleme • 28 gün önce

This is F**king dangerous Someone figured out how to get dramatically sharper reasoning out of Opus 4.8 with one setup. Here is how: Ask Claude to write you an "operating manual" for how it should reason through your work Create a new Claude Project and paste that .md into the Project instructions Run Opus 4.8 on High or Max effort Now the model reasons against a real framework instead of improvising every response. Same model. Far better output. And Opus 4.8 already costs a fraction of Fable 5. Save and bookmark this. Follow CyrilXBT
0:41

This is F**king dangerous Someone figured out how to get dramatically sharper reasoning out of Opus 4.8 with one setup. Here is how: Ask Claude to write you an "operating manual" for how it should reason through your work Create a new Claude Project and paste that .md into the Project instructions Run Opus 4.8 on High or Max effort Now the model reasons against a real framework instead of improvising every response. Same model. Far better output. And Opus 4.8 already costs a fraction of Fable 5. Save and bookmark this. Follow CyrilXBT

CyrilXBT

198,085 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Claude Fable 5 created this horror game with the same prompt we tested Fusion on. Do not fall for OpenRouters fraudulent marketing scheme. The capability of Fusion is NO WHERE close to that of Fable 5. Stringing together Opus 4.8, GPT 5.5, and DeepSeek V4 does not give you a better model. OpenRouter should be sued for false marketing.
1:17

Claude Fable 5 created this horror game with the same prompt we tested Fusion on. Do not fall for OpenRouters fraudulent marketing scheme. The capability of Fusion is NO WHERE close to that of Fable 5. Stringing together Opus 4.8, GPT 5.5, and DeepSeek V4 does not give you a better model. OpenRouter should be sued for false marketing.

BridgeMind

31,098 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

i finally mastered how to maximise my opus 5.5 usage limits... the trick: let jev choose which subagent gets each task and how much effort it should use. [here’s how i’d wire it:] claude breaks the project into tasks. jev selects from predefined worker profiles. claude applies the selected settings and dispatches the work. → main session, medium: clarify the requirements, define what “done” looks like, and prepare the tasks → builder, low: small, clearly defined tasks with existing examples or patterns → builder, medium: tasks that connect multiple parts or need decisions within the approved plan → verifier, high: check requirements, probe edge cases, and report problems for the builder to fix jev gets the task’s scope, what’s uncertain, and the consequences of failure. it chooses from the profiles allowed for that task. your approval checkpoints stay in place. paste this into your next planning session: “use opus 5.5 with jev selecting the worker and effort profile for each task. first, check that a working jev integration is available and that this environment supports separate effort settings for subagents. check for configuration or environment overrides that could prevent those settings from taking effect. if anything is missing, explain what needs wiring before proceeding. break my request into tasks with clear ownership, dependencies, relevant context, and acceptance checks. keep small related tasks together when a separate subagent would add unnecessary overhead. keep the main session at medium effort. offer jev these worker profiles: builder at low effort for small, clearly defined tasks using existing patterns; builder at medium effort for tasks that connect multiple parts or require decisions within the approved plan; verifier at high effort for checking requirements and edge cases. give jev each task’s scope, uncertainties, dependencies, and consequences of failure. only offer profiles appropriate to the current stage. validate its selection before dispatching. use the actual jev integration; don’t simulate its decisions. if it abstains or returns an invalid choice, stop that handoff and ask me. show me the task plan and proposed assignments before starting. after approval, launch the selected workers with their assigned effort settings, relevant context, file ownership, and completion checks. let me review the result before verification. the verifier may add tests but must leave implementation code unchanged. have it report what passed, what failed, and what remains uncertain. send implementation fixes back to the builder, then recheck the affected parts. if a task repeatedly fails, examine the requirements and approach before increasing effort. report available total usage, including jev calls, worker calls, retries, and verification. don’t invent missing data. compare similar completed tasks before claiming savings.” steal this 👇
0:33

i finally mastered how to maximise my opus 5.5 usage limits... the trick: let jev choose which subagent gets each task and how much effort it should use. [here’s how i’d wire it:] claude breaks the project into tasks. jev selects from predefined worker profiles. claude applies the selected settings and dispatches the work. → main session, medium: clarify the requirements, define what “done” looks like, and prepare the tasks → builder, low: small, clearly defined tasks with existing examples or patterns → builder, medium: tasks that connect multiple parts or need decisions within the approved plan → verifier, high: check requirements, probe edge cases, and report problems for the builder to fix jev gets the task’s scope, what’s uncertain, and the consequences of failure. it chooses from the profiles allowed for that task. your approval checkpoints stay in place. paste this into your next planning session: “use opus 5.5 with jev selecting the worker and effort profile for each task. first, check that a working jev integration is available and that this environment supports separate effort settings for subagents. check for configuration or environment overrides that could prevent those settings from taking effect. if anything is missing, explain what needs wiring before proceeding. break my request into tasks with clear ownership, dependencies, relevant context, and acceptance checks. keep small related tasks together when a separate subagent would add unnecessary overhead. keep the main session at medium effort. offer jev these worker profiles: builder at low effort for small, clearly defined tasks using existing patterns; builder at medium effort for tasks that connect multiple parts or require decisions within the approved plan; verifier at high effort for checking requirements and edge cases. give jev each task’s scope, uncertainties, dependencies, and consequences of failure. only offer profiles appropriate to the current stage. validate its selection before dispatching. use the actual jev integration; don’t simulate its decisions. if it abstains or returns an invalid choice, stop that handoff and ask me. show me the task plan and proposed assignments before starting. after approval, launch the selected workers with their assigned effort settings, relevant context, file ownership, and completion checks. let me review the result before verification. the verifier may add tests but must leave implementation code unchanged. have it report what passed, what failed, and what remains uncertain. send implementation fixes back to the builder, then recheck the affected parts. if a task repeatedly fails, examine the requirements and approach before increasing effort. report available total usage, including jev calls, worker calls, retries, and verification. don’t invent missing data. compare similar completed tasks before claiming savings.” steal this 👇

Avid

31,355 görüntüleme • 8 gün önce

Day 3 of 5 building with Claude Fable 5 before it goes paid. Today: an audit of everything you have already made. 1. Fable 5 reads back through all your past Claude chats 2. It flags what worked, what you dropped, and where value is going to waste 3. It ranks the top 10 fixes by effort against impact 4. Then it hands you a concrete plan for the top 3 5. Run that plan on a cheaper model and save Fable 5 for the thinking Comment FABLE for the full guide. Make sure you follow me so I can DM it to you. Day 4 tomorrow.
0:52

Day 3 of 5 building with Claude Fable 5 before it goes paid. Today: an audit of everything you have already made. 1. Fable 5 reads back through all your past Claude chats 2. It flags what worked, what you dropped, and where value is going to waste 3. It ranks the top 10 fixes by effort against impact 4. Then it hands you a concrete plan for the top 3 5. Run that plan on a cheaper model and save Fable 5 for the thinking Comment FABLE for the full guide. Make sure you follow me so I can DM it to you. Day 4 tomorrow.

Charlie Hills

13,617 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce