It’s a really good model. Over the past few days, I give Opus some general directives to basically speed up our CI, and telling it I care both about billing minutes and wall clock time. I told it to create a plan after analyzing everything in our CI, run the plan by a Fable subagent, and then focus on low-risk, high-reward changes.
9 hours later, I had 12 PRs ready to be merged, and the net result is CI time has dropped from ~10 minutes to ~4 minutes, and billing minutes have dropped around 60%. Less than an hour of my attention.
Every time weird stuff happened this week it was because the model choice in VSCode got set back to “auto” and some other model was trying its best. 5.5 is what I just set it to. Even Fable feels worse for my use cases.
Because Anthropic releases their different model level's at very different points in time, they seem to always have one model that is by far an away the best to use for everything. Haiku 4.5 is almost a year old. Sonnet is fine, but idk if it has any real benefits over Opus. It's only been since Fable has been released that you get to choose between Fable and Opus, but not with 5.5 there is no reason to use Fable.
I feel like instead of releasing fable, they should have released it as Opus 5, then their next Opus release they would call Sonnet, and their next Sonnet release they would have called Haiku. I don't know if their pricing structure would have been able to support that, but Anthropic has always been the least competitive regarding token pricing.
Agree Opus 5.5 is incredible and efficient with Claude Max Usage.What a jump after the writing slop you got from Opus 5. I had moved to using Fable for my orchestration workflow mainly due to the communication issue (I think Opus 5 was capable enough but spoke in riddles so you lost confidence quickly)..With 5.5 it needs less steering now and communicates well, and I have had the same CC session running for the last week (obviously compacting with durable plans etc as the post), with it PM'ing my home built agent orchestration of the other coding agents(antigravity, codex, pi etc) and making decent decisions and all the recommendations are normally usually good.
To back this up we have a discord chat for the board game terraforming mars where the agent takes input and vibe codes an open source implementation of the game.
https://tfmbot.com is the link (discord and source links on the splash screen).
The results are fucking incredible to the point where people in discord are stating "I'm surprised this is working so well". I am too.
I feel like there's a group online that missed the boat. Anything negative towards AI capabilities is still upvoted but I've been in the industry for over 25years, highly respected and can't fathom the "AI dumb lololol" type of comments i see on HN. AI is superseeding all other ways to develop.
I'm restoring a game I played as a kid, that I couldn't reliably get to even start on modern Windows. The skill and speed with which Opus 5.5 got it running, while patching a bunch of bugs in the binary along the way (only some of them I knew about), has my jaw still on the floor - and few hours in, I already have whole campaign mapped out as state machine graph, and we're upscaling graphics now.
Yes. It spawned multiple subagents to run different experiments to benchmark a lot of different things, reviewed CI logs from past runs, etc. In the end, there were changes to what/how we cached, various code quality checks, speeding up test runners, and many other things.
Pricing is dropping quick. Inference is so cheap, I think they are losing a lot less money selling subscriptions than you think. It might even be more expensive managing the load, than actually selling the tokens at subscription prices.
We are seeing with OpenAI, allegedly through their new pricing scheme, as intelligence and model efficiency increases they offer the same throughput while advertising 1/2 as much usage, letting Astra consume more usage, essentially only being available to those wealthy enough to afford it while still offering essentially unlimited Sol and Luna to their subscription tiers.
Also if you're cache hit rate is high enough a billion tokens tokens from Deepseek 4.1 Flash costs less than $15.
If you compare the cost to the price of dinner or whatever else you spend disposable income on, it can seem high but if you compare the cost to employing an engineer (don’t forget costs for payroll taxes, office space and equipment, etc) and consider the fact that the models often seem to be much faster than even expert humans, the costs don’t seem so terrible.
It’s great, but you still need to know what you are doing, not just the goal/s. I built a platform years ago from scratch, and now I am remaking it with more features and more polished design, I know exactly what needs to be done to tiniest details. The first prompt was very well detailed about the architecture and how everything should work, after an hour work at Xhigh, it did create the blueprint artifacts that I asked for, then I spent 3 days reading every single thing and writing notes, turned out it made the system overly complicated without adding extra value, plus I can see how some of the architecture design will be potentially a security risk. So after few days I fed my notes, this time took 4hours and 1M tokens! Later I spent more few days reviewing and writing notes, it was closer to what I want but still made architecture errors, the third run took around an hour and finally made it how it supposed to be, although there are still more notes on non critical stuff. So I don’t think we are yet at the stage where sitting goals and some high level is enough to produce quality results.
I do like Opus 4.6, but I think 5.5 on medium or low is a better value. I have to steer 4.6 more and build more scaffolding around the tasks. 5.5 just does what I ask. Visual spatial reasoning greatly improved in 5.5 as well.
In the meantime, I have cancelled my Anthropic subscription...
I have a simple test that I have been running iteratively across the SOTA models from several vendors, including one Chinese vendor.
I start with some code produced by an Anthropic SOTA model...let’s call that Code A.
Then I get Code B and Code C for the same task from models by two other vendors.
Then I ask each model to review and critique the other proposals.
By the end, both the Anthropic model and I usually run out of arguments...
against them and agree that proposals B and C are better.
Claude then always asks whether it can incorporate the code or ideas
from B and C into its own solution...
I’m rooting for open models, but SOL 6.1 and Opus 5.5 are absolute workhorses on a $100/mo sub. I share your fears, though, and really hope an open model catches up and can somehow compete with the subscription prices of the big 2.
I have workhorse models, spend far less, the model matters less than people like to claim
there's no money long term in being a token vendor
The biggest revelation from using open weights, because the vendors offer most of them up, is how useful using multiple model families is. Regardless of open or closed, if you are only using one family like Ant or Oai models, you're leaving a lot on the table. A harness like OpenCode will enable you to use different models in one session, or more specifically different subtasks when doing long running teams.
Nobody AMERICAN in his right mind will use... Wait, actually a lot of them will.
But for me, as a non american, non chinese person: I'll use whatever the fuck is the best and cheapest for my task, because that's how fucking Capitalism works.
If that means that a (proclaimed) "communist" country cleans the carpet with the self-proclaimed land of the free: so be it!
Trying to make us feel old? Very common term among people around my age and higher (40+). Please don't turn "I've never heard that expression before" into "must be AI saying it".
It's a standard term and has been for ages. It distinguishes end to end time vs eg the amount of CPU time an individual process uses (which excludes time spent waiting for the system or time when the process was otherwise not scheduled on the CPU).
“Wall time” is a pretty common systems term (you see it when comparing total runtime to kernel time, for example). I wouldn’t have indexed on “wall clock time” or other variants as an LLMism.
It’s extremely good at frontend, particularly if it has an image reference. I chucked in design reference images into this and told it to focus on the flowing svgs, and it crushed this Star Trek computer-inspired layout: https://html.non.io/lcars-opus-5.5
Some of this advice is really missing the mark. I will speak to just one I know well. Many of my frequently used prompts have “think through this step by step” because if you don’t, it only considers the task holistically rather than step by step, and different issues emerge in that frame of thinking. I see this. Often when doing planning, for example, it will not notice interdependencies between tasks until you force it to think through doing the whole thing step by step (task by task) then it will notice that step 2 requires a feature introduced by step 14. It wouldn’t notice otherwise.
Yes this has held true on Opus 5.5. I checked. It’s a massively better model, peer to Fable but with different strengths and weaknesses. But it still has this issue. Which to be fair, people do too. Planning is a learned skill.
I think what they’re saying is that the harness no longer uses a text search on “think” to engage reasoning modes. Fair, that’s good to know. That doesn’t mean asking the model to think a certain way doesn’t have the intended effect.
It's much better than 5, but I've had a couple of situations this week where it was too interested in being independent, making calls that went directly against my recommendations. It can also do fun things like convince auto-mode to go way past what I have autorized. For instance, specific permission to run process X in region abz-1 suddenly became running X in 5 other regions, with no warning, and doing modifications that it never mentioned in the summaries. And a few of the times it got the calls very wrong, by assuming it understood systems it didn't. It'd even argue with me when corrected, as it assumed similar names were referring to the same thing, when they weren't.
So asking it to do things on its own for a long time? Given last week, absolutely not.
This was back on OPUS 5 but I asked it to look into some logs and see if the new version of our release had fixed the issues we had tried to fix. It told me that release wasn't up on dev yet.
"Claude, I released it myself, its up there, just analyze the logs"
"Ok, I'll analyze the logs but it isnt" -crunches for a while- "the issues aren't fixed, but that's because the new version isn't up there"
I think I yelled at it one more time about how I know what was released before "we" figured out that the last release had failed in a way our release system reported as success, but was crash looping on start up and so the old version was still around and working as back up.
Been very impressed with my most recent project. I wanted to simulate some older electronics circuits. I handed it a folder with scans of old service manuals which contained circuit diagrams. It managed to correctly interpret the circuits, including figuring out some were the same topology despite the diagrams being quite different, or some that had some subtle but very important differences despite looking almost identical at a glance.
In a few cases it asked me to check some subcircuits and some component values because it couldn't read it right. So instead of just making things up it deferred to me.
It also ran tons of small simulation experiments while doing this to verify claims from the service manual, like that the RC filter it had read off the schematics actually had a cutoff frequency that was sensible in relation to some bandwidth number in the manual.
I had uploaded datasheet PDFs for many of the ICs and it used those to cross-reference and validate.
It kept on working for over an hour. When it asked for the manual verification, I described circuit connections in words, like "from pin 3 on IC 2 there's a series resistor of 3k in parallel with a 10 pF capacitor, it then connects to a 18k resistor to ground, a reverse-biased diode to ground, and then finally into pin 6 of IC 4", and it correctly understood the topology in all the cases. Sometimes it asked me to check again because it though something was off, and indeed I had mis-read the schematics.
I also provided reference articles on the underlying theory. Scannded stuff from the 40s and 50s. It correctly read the equations and cross-validated them across papers, and even caught several typos along the way.
I barely had to do anything apart from providing the PDFs and some occasional manual schematic interpretation.
Claude 5.5 on High. Burned through about 50% of my weekly $20 subscription usage, but I didn't try to optimize much.
I did use Sonnet 5.5 Medium on some datasheets and it also did very well on the extraction, but did have to correct itself more often on the conclusions.
I have been doing some very similar stuff and have also had frankly unbelievable (good) results with both Anthropic and OpenAI models on understanding and modifying some analog circuits out of some old one off ham equipment.
I'm using OpenAI and a different harness, but I'm getting a lot of mileage out of asking "what are the commits?" and "please go ahead, using a Luna subagent for each commit."
I used to have the AI write a planning note with checklists, but this seems good enough nowadays.
I've had troubles with it getting stuck "waiting" for a day on some hook or something in CC that never completed and during a task that was waiting on an orphaned process. That maybe saves token money on checks waiting for long-running processes but makes it hard to trust for long-horizon work.
It's been amazing at making sure OOMs for multiple heavy builds on my machine don't happen, adding queues and locks to make sure performance measurements are isolated and gpu stays clean during experiments.
It's also way more able to execute subagent tasks all at once than GPT 6.1
I tried to give it 10 different subtasks all at once that were overlapping and unrelated issues and it did a good job spinning up isolated worktees, agents and then coordinating the merge back together and then verifying them with agents in batches.
How are the limits compared to OpenAI models like 6.1 Sol? After the 200 dollar plan rugpull not sure if I should switch, however Anthropic has historically had worse usage limits than OpenAI.
I've given it some big tasks and asked it to parallelize as much as possible etc.
It did burn through my weekly tokens in about a day (20x max), but the output was completely on point.
(I knew there was a "reset token usage - opus 5.5" button in my account.)
I've now come to a point where I even delegate my discovery for new features to it.
You still need to give it methodologies though to get the proper output, but the outcome is way beyond what I would be able to realize with a team of 5 in a month.
Incredible model. I don't see why they can't just include the recommended workstyle as a guided approach into the claude code harness though, and let the people who want to diverge just ignore it
I also want this, even just $40 (i.e. "2x") would be plenty. The way it is right now, Pro is a tight squeeze but anything else is total overkill and I have no idea how I'd use those extra tokens productively.
Is it still necessary to ask Claude to spin up sub-agents? If Opus 5.5 decides how carefully it needs to think after each question, surely it can also decide whether it needs to spin up sub-agents? GPT 6 series models at least seem to do this agent management automatically.
I really hate long tasks. Claude never gets things right, at least for me, and wastes tons of time when a simple question would have gotten me to the right result rather than several turns of correcting bad decisions in addition to the long amounts of wasted thinking time.
What sort of workloads do well with these long tasks? The big labs are optimizing for long run time on their own, but it seems like a terrible thing to optimize on unless you're trying to do something like prove a hard math theorem, which success is clearly defined and the route doesn't matter a ton.
Plan mode has been made increasingly useless. I need to discuss to iterate to get the desired design, explore options, because Claude never gets it right first try and I don't have enough knowledge of options to specify everything up front.
Ah well, the Chinese models will still work well, I guess.
Look up the grilling skill[0]. To make it even better, tell Claude to modify it to use the AskUserQuestion functionality. It's so much better than plan mode.
Plan mode has become pointless since Opus 5 came out, they know when to switch between planning and execution now. But that iteration/discussion is still necessary unless you're building completely blind - the model cannot read your mind.
I've had it running 8h+ of non-stop optimizations, chasing a performance target, rewriting systems or building a series of prototypes for research. All it needs is a clear goal.
It’s amazing at debugging too. I had it running in Powershell controlling an lldb session in MSYS2. The way it can read addresses and so root cause analysis is amazing! It takes a lot of mind power to do those things.
I like to watch it work though because it honestly teaches me some tricks.
Opus 5.5 is great and cheaper if you compare to fable with close quality in coding (tested in refactoring java to nodejs), but I do not understand why the week before the release Opus 5 started hallucinating (long loop and waste of token for single tasks)
Is it just me, or is the first example for "define what DONE means" a lot like the "draw the rest of the fucking owl" meme? Except for a small subset of tasks that are already trivial like migration work.
What I mean is, for most tasks I do that aren't trivial, by the time I have defined what DONE means, I would've already did the work and walked the path to get there, which is what I would've hoped to not have to do in the first place.
I think what makes it great is that they trained it to write harnesses for the code it writes, so it can test stuff even if the supplied code is not complete.
the open weight models I've been using have been doing that for months, not sure it's a new pattern in the opus 5.5, or maybe they distilled it back? :x
It’s a really good model. Over the past few days, I give Opus some general directives to basically speed up our CI, and telling it I care both about billing minutes and wall clock time. I told it to create a plan after analyzing everything in our CI, run the plan by a Fable subagent, and then focus on low-risk, high-reward changes.
9 hours later, I had 12 PRs ready to be merged, and the net result is CI time has dropped from ~10 minutes to ~4 minutes, and billing minutes have dropped around 60%. Less than an hour of my attention.
Every time weird stuff happened this week it was because the model choice in VSCode got set back to “auto” and some other model was trying its best. 5.5 is what I just set it to. Even Fable feels worse for my use cases.
Even Anthropic rates Fable lower than 5.5 on pretty much all benchmarks.
"Why does Fable even exist" is a very very reasonable question right now.
It's a class of model not a static one. There'll be Fable 5.5 that's even better than Opus 5.5.
Because Anthropic releases their different model level's at very different points in time, they seem to always have one model that is by far an away the best to use for everything. Haiku 4.5 is almost a year old. Sonnet is fine, but idk if it has any real benefits over Opus. It's only been since Fable has been released that you get to choose between Fable and Opus, but not with 5.5 there is no reason to use Fable.
I feel like instead of releasing fable, they should have released it as Opus 5, then their next Opus release they would call Sonnet, and their next Sonnet release they would have called Haiku. I don't know if their pricing structure would have been able to support that, but Anthropic has always been the least competitive regarding token pricing.
I would also say: I think this works great because the goal is well-defined and measurable.
I’ve also used Opus 5.5 on some hill-climbing, and a lot more steering is required here, because … eval is hard.
Agree Opus 5.5 is incredible and efficient with Claude Max Usage.What a jump after the writing slop you got from Opus 5. I had moved to using Fable for my orchestration workflow mainly due to the communication issue (I think Opus 5 was capable enough but spoke in riddles so you lost confidence quickly)..With 5.5 it needs less steering now and communicates well, and I have had the same CC session running for the last week (obviously compacting with durable plans etc as the post), with it PM'ing my home built agent orchestration of the other coding agents(antigravity, codex, pi etc) and making decent decisions and all the recommendations are normally usually good.
To back this up we have a discord chat for the board game terraforming mars where the agent takes input and vibe codes an open source implementation of the game.
https://tfmbot.com is the link (discord and source links on the splash screen).
The results are fucking incredible to the point where people in discord are stating "I'm surprised this is working so well". I am too.
I feel like there's a group online that missed the boat. Anything negative towards AI capabilities is still upvoted but I've been in the industry for over 25years, highly respected and can't fathom the "AI dumb lololol" type of comments i see on HN. AI is superseeding all other ways to develop.
I'm restoring a game I played as a kid, that I couldn't reliably get to even start on modern Windows. The skill and speed with which Opus 5.5 got it running, while patching a bunch of bugs in the binary along the way (only some of them I knew about), has my jaw still on the floor - and few hours in, I already have whole campaign mapped out as state machine graph, and we're upscaling graphics now.
9 hours?!
Yes. It spawned multiple subagents to run different experiments to benchmark a lot of different things, reviewed CI logs from past runs, etc. In the end, there were changes to what/how we cached, various code quality checks, speeding up test runners, and many other things.
I dare not ask about the cost, having burned $60 on a task running for 1h 16min once.
I’m on the $100/month subscription; this session took about $500 in token-equivalent costs.
(Note that it wasn’t all Opus 5.5; I have a setup that uses Fable 5.1 as an advisor, Sonnet 5.5 for mechanical changes, etc.)
God I hope the prices drop quick. Once they stop subsidizing it these kinds of workflows will be unaffordable for anyone who isn't already wealthy
Pricing is dropping quick. Inference is so cheap, I think they are losing a lot less money selling subscriptions than you think. It might even be more expensive managing the load, than actually selling the tokens at subscription prices.
We are seeing with OpenAI, allegedly through their new pricing scheme, as intelligence and model efficiency increases they offer the same throughput while advertising 1/2 as much usage, letting Astra consume more usage, essentially only being available to those wealthy enough to afford it while still offering essentially unlimited Sol and Luna to their subscription tiers.
Also if you're cache hit rate is high enough a billion tokens tokens from Deepseek 4.1 Flash costs less than $15.
They have dropped, in Chinese models.
Does it resume automatically on higher subscriptions?
I'm on a $20 plan and it never auto resumes. I have to go back in and type out resume or click a button.
Instruct it to arm a monitor (every hour or so) to wake him up in case of quota or api issue.
Interesting how the French call Claude a "him" and not an "it", as French and many other languages don't have a word for a neuter pronoun.
If you compare the cost to the price of dinner or whatever else you spend disposable income on, it can seem high but if you compare the cost to employing an engineer (don’t forget costs for payroll taxes, office space and equipment, etc) and consider the fact that the models often seem to be much faster than even expert humans, the costs don’t seem so terrible.
It’s great, but you still need to know what you are doing, not just the goal/s. I built a platform years ago from scratch, and now I am remaking it with more features and more polished design, I know exactly what needs to be done to tiniest details. The first prompt was very well detailed about the architecture and how everything should work, after an hour work at Xhigh, it did create the blueprint artifacts that I asked for, then I spent 3 days reading every single thing and writing notes, turned out it made the system overly complicated without adding extra value, plus I can see how some of the architecture design will be potentially a security risk. So after few days I fed my notes, this time took 4hours and 1M tokens! Later I spent more few days reviewing and writing notes, it was closer to what I want but still made architecture errors, the third run took around an hour and finally made it how it supposed to be, although there are still more notes on non critical stuff. So I don’t think we are yet at the stage where sitting goals and some high level is enough to produce quality results.
Meh... There's a reason Opus 4.6 is still an option.
Pros know these are lower cost models.
I do like Opus 4.6, but I think 5.5 on medium or low is a better value. I have to steer 4.6 more and build more scaffolding around the tasks. 5.5 just does what I ask. Visual spatial reasoning greatly improved in 5.5 as well.
>> It’s a really good model.
In the meantime, I have cancelled my Anthropic subscription...
I have a simple test that I have been running iteratively across the SOTA models from several vendors, including one Chinese vendor.
I start with some code produced by an Anthropic SOTA model...let’s call that Code A. Then I get Code B and Code C for the same task from models by two other vendors.
Then I ask each model to review and critique the other proposals.
By the end, both the Anthropic model and I usually run out of arguments... against them and agree that proposals B and C are better.
Claude then always asks whether it can incorporate the code or ideas from B and C into its own solution...
It's not even funny any more. Chinese model, Chinese vendor, Chinese, Chinese... Did I say Chinese? Chinese!
Nobody in his right mind will use a Chinese clone when you have models like Opus 5.5 for peanuts.
Yes ...I was so impressed I cancelled my subscription. I could not stand all the winning. I offer cheap hourly rates of $1000 for debugging AI slop.
Contact me at : prompt.plumber@gmail.com
> Nobody in his right mind will...
let a few valley elites decide how humanity can use this technology
open and transparent is the way, China is showing how
I’m rooting for open models, but SOL 6.1 and Opus 5.5 are absolute workhorses on a $100/mo sub. I share your fears, though, and really hope an open model catches up and can somehow compete with the subscription prices of the big 2.
I have workhorse models, spend far less, the model matters less than people like to claim
there's no money long term in being a token vendor
The biggest revelation from using open weights, because the vendors offer most of them up, is how useful using multiple model families is. Regardless of open or closed, if you are only using one family like Ant or Oai models, you're leaving a lot on the table. A harness like OpenCode will enable you to use different models in one session, or more specifically different subtasks when doing long running teams.
> Nobody in his right mind will use
Nobody AMERICAN in his right mind will use... Wait, actually a lot of them will.
But for me, as a non american, non chinese person: I'll use whatever the fuck is the best and cheapest for my task, because that's how fucking Capitalism works.
If that means that a (proclaimed) "communist" country cleans the carpet with the self-proclaimed land of the free: so be it!
Is "wall-clock" an actual term you used before Claude? I had never heard it before the model used it and I can't stand it.
It's a pretty old term, to distinguish from e.g. CPU time. This was in common usage even 30 years ago.
Example from 15 years ago: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7335920/what-specificall...
Trying to make us feel old? Very common term among people around my age and higher (40+). Please don't turn "I've never heard that expression before" into "must be AI saying it".
It's a standard term and has been for ages. It distinguishes end to end time vs eg the amount of CPU time an individual process uses (which excludes time spent waiting for the system or time when the process was otherwise not scheduled on the CPU).
As old as time.
https://ss64.com/bash/time.html
“Wall time” is a pretty common systems term (you see it when comparing total runtime to kernel time, for example). I wouldn’t have indexed on “wall clock time” or other variants as an LLMism.
I've used wall clock for many years, normally when compared to CPU time when talking about parallelizing some process.
CPU time might go up while wall clock time goes down
I've heard that term for years before LLMs
Wow...it's super common. For example, timing a program you can get user CPU time and then wall clock time, which can be two very different numbers.
Lolwut? You seriously have never heard anyone say this before?
It’s extremely good at frontend, particularly if it has an image reference. I chucked in design reference images into this and told it to focus on the flowing svgs, and it crushed this Star Trek computer-inspired layout: https://html.non.io/lcars-opus-5.5
What is this spam of generic comments about how Opus 5.5 is so great, with perhaps some anecdote? How is that discussing the submission?
Some of this advice is really missing the mark. I will speak to just one I know well. Many of my frequently used prompts have “think through this step by step” because if you don’t, it only considers the task holistically rather than step by step, and different issues emerge in that frame of thinking. I see this. Often when doing planning, for example, it will not notice interdependencies between tasks until you force it to think through doing the whole thing step by step (task by task) then it will notice that step 2 requires a feature introduced by step 14. It wouldn’t notice otherwise.
Yes this has held true on Opus 5.5. I checked. It’s a massively better model, peer to Fable but with different strengths and weaknesses. But it still has this issue. Which to be fair, people do too. Planning is a learned skill.
I think what they’re saying is that the harness no longer uses a text search on “think” to engage reasoning modes. Fair, that’s good to know. That doesn’t mean asking the model to think a certain way doesn’t have the intended effect.
It's much better than 5, but I've had a couple of situations this week where it was too interested in being independent, making calls that went directly against my recommendations. It can also do fun things like convince auto-mode to go way past what I have autorized. For instance, specific permission to run process X in region abz-1 suddenly became running X in 5 other regions, with no warning, and doing modifications that it never mentioned in the summaries. And a few of the times it got the calls very wrong, by assuming it understood systems it didn't. It'd even argue with me when corrected, as it assumed similar names were referring to the same thing, when they weren't.
So asking it to do things on its own for a long time? Given last week, absolutely not.
Otoh, I've had it push back against my false assumptions when I was confidently incorrect, finding proof unasked.
This was back on OPUS 5 but I asked it to look into some logs and see if the new version of our release had fixed the issues we had tried to fix. It told me that release wasn't up on dev yet.
"Claude, I released it myself, its up there, just analyze the logs"
"Ok, I'll analyze the logs but it isnt" -crunches for a while- "the issues aren't fixed, but that's because the new version isn't up there"
I think I yelled at it one more time about how I know what was released before "we" figured out that the last release had failed in a way our release system reported as success, but was crash looping on start up and so the old version was still around and working as back up.
Sorry claude.
Now fix that release status check.
Been very impressed with my most recent project. I wanted to simulate some older electronics circuits. I handed it a folder with scans of old service manuals which contained circuit diagrams. It managed to correctly interpret the circuits, including figuring out some were the same topology despite the diagrams being quite different, or some that had some subtle but very important differences despite looking almost identical at a glance.
In a few cases it asked me to check some subcircuits and some component values because it couldn't read it right. So instead of just making things up it deferred to me.
It also ran tons of small simulation experiments while doing this to verify claims from the service manual, like that the RC filter it had read off the schematics actually had a cutoff frequency that was sensible in relation to some bandwidth number in the manual.
I had uploaded datasheet PDFs for many of the ICs and it used those to cross-reference and validate.
It kept on working for over an hour. When it asked for the manual verification, I described circuit connections in words, like "from pin 3 on IC 2 there's a series resistor of 3k in parallel with a 10 pF capacitor, it then connects to a 18k resistor to ground, a reverse-biased diode to ground, and then finally into pin 6 of IC 4", and it correctly understood the topology in all the cases. Sometimes it asked me to check again because it though something was off, and indeed I had mis-read the schematics.
I also provided reference articles on the underlying theory. Scannded stuff from the 40s and 50s. It correctly read the equations and cross-validated them across papers, and even caught several typos along the way.
I barely had to do anything apart from providing the PDFs and some occasional manual schematic interpretation.
Claude 5.5 on High. Burned through about 50% of my weekly $20 subscription usage, but I didn't try to optimize much.
I did use Sonnet 5.5 Medium on some datasheets and it also did very well on the extraction, but did have to correct itself more often on the conclusions.
I have been doing some very similar stuff and have also had frankly unbelievable (good) results with both Anthropic and OpenAI models on understanding and modifying some analog circuits out of some old one off ham equipment.
I'm using OpenAI and a different harness, but I'm getting a lot of mileage out of asking "what are the commits?" and "please go ahead, using a Luna subagent for each commit."
I used to have the AI write a planning note with checklists, but this seems good enough nowadays.
I've had troubles with it getting stuck "waiting" for a day on some hook or something in CC that never completed and during a task that was waiting on an orphaned process. That maybe saves token money on checks waiting for long-running processes but makes it hard to trust for long-horizon work.
It's been amazing at making sure OOMs for multiple heavy builds on my machine don't happen, adding queues and locks to make sure performance measurements are isolated and gpu stays clean during experiments.
It's also way more able to execute subagent tasks all at once than GPT 6.1 I tried to give it 10 different subtasks all at once that were overlapping and unrelated issues and it did a good job spinning up isolated worktees, agents and then coordinating the merge back together and then verifying them with agents in batches.
How are the limits compared to OpenAI models like 6.1 Sol? After the 200 dollar plan rugpull not sure if I should switch, however Anthropic has historically had worse usage limits than OpenAI.
Limits have been decently comparable to 6.1 Sol anecdotally. Although it's subagent eagerness can make then comparison ebb/flow.
The notable difference to me is tokens/sec are still much higher on 6.1 Sol
Superb model indeed.
I've given it some big tasks and asked it to parallelize as much as possible etc.
It did burn through my weekly tokens in about a day (20x max), but the output was completely on point. (I knew there was a "reset token usage - opus 5.5" button in my account.)
I've now come to a point where I even delegate my discovery for new features to it.
You still need to give it methodologies though to get the proper output, but the outcome is way beyond what I would be able to realize with a team of 5 in a month.
Incredible model. I don't see why they can't just include the recommended workstyle as a guided approach into the claude code harness though, and let the people who want to diverge just ignore it
> and let the people who want to diverge...
the company is run by holier-than-thou, we know what's best... who apparently don't read claude's output and blindly trust it
the mythos "hacking" of the linux kernel, as finally told from the linux side, is eye opening
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnV_cWeoo5Q
"Don’t ask it to show its reasoning in the reply" “Explain why you chose this approach in three sentences” says it all really
I’m going to be the lone dissenting voice here and say I still find it overeager and irritating to work with.
Can Anthropic introduce a $50 USD Plan ? I dont want to spend 100$ , but $20 plan is not enough for me.
You should try using claude as an orchestrator that hands off the actual building to codex models, works really well and you can save some sub usage
I also want this, even just $40 (i.e. "2x") would be plenty. The way it is right now, Pro is a tight squeeze but anything else is total overkill and I have no idea how I'd use those extra tokens productively.
Would a plan with daily quota only work for you better? (no monthly/weekly, just daily)
Yep, exactly what I was thinking too…
Is it still necessary to ask Claude to spin up sub-agents? If Opus 5.5 decides how carefully it needs to think after each question, surely it can also decide whether it needs to spin up sub-agents? GPT 6 series models at least seem to do this agent management automatically.
I really hate long tasks. Claude never gets things right, at least for me, and wastes tons of time when a simple question would have gotten me to the right result rather than several turns of correcting bad decisions in addition to the long amounts of wasted thinking time.
What sort of workloads do well with these long tasks? The big labs are optimizing for long run time on their own, but it seems like a terrible thing to optimize on unless you're trying to do something like prove a hard math theorem, which success is clearly defined and the route doesn't matter a ton.
Plan mode has been made increasingly useless. I need to discuss to iterate to get the desired design, explore options, because Claude never gets it right first try and I don't have enough knowledge of options to specify everything up front.
Ah well, the Chinese models will still work well, I guess.
Look up the grilling skill[0]. To make it even better, tell Claude to modify it to use the AskUserQuestion functionality. It's so much better than plan mode.
0. https://github.com/mattpocock/skills/blob/main/skills/produc...
Plan mode has become pointless since Opus 5 came out, they know when to switch between planning and execution now. But that iteration/discussion is still necessary unless you're building completely blind - the model cannot read your mind.
I've had it running 8h+ of non-stop optimizations, chasing a performance target, rewriting systems or building a series of prototypes for research. All it needs is a clear goal.
Agreed on Opus 5.5 being a great model. It's the first one that I trust for long running (>1 hour) tasks.
It’s amazing at debugging too. I had it running in Powershell controlling an lldb session in MSYS2. The way it can read addresses and so root cause analysis is amazing! It takes a lot of mind power to do those things.
I like to watch it work though because it honestly teaches me some tricks.
I'm convinced gpt 4.5 was the best model humanity has ever made.
Now we are getting downgraded models that do 100x COT because it's cheaper.
Honey, it's time for your daily Anthropic PR piece!
Opus 5.5 is great and cheaper if you compare to fable with close quality in coding (tested in refactoring java to nodejs), but I do not understand why the week before the release Opus 5 started hallucinating (long loop and waste of token for single tasks)
Is it just me, or is the first example for "define what DONE means" a lot like the "draw the rest of the fucking owl" meme? Except for a small subset of tasks that are already trivial like migration work.
What I mean is, for most tasks I do that aren't trivial, by the time I have defined what DONE means, I would've already did the work and walked the path to get there, which is what I would've hoped to not have to do in the first place.
The best model I've ever used easily. It's incredible. I've done so much in the past week. About three months of work I reckon.
Same. I was asked to rebuild an app with AI as an experiment. The original app took months and Opus 5.5 rebuilt it in less than a week.
Did you get paid the amount of three months?
It not: who becomes rich on all that productivity?
Phenomenal model, not sure what they did, but I have been able to do so much with my $20 plan!
I think what makes it great is that they trained it to write harnesses for the code it writes, so it can test stuff even if the supplied code is not complete.
the open weight models I've been using have been doing that for months, not sure it's a new pattern in the opus 5.5, or maybe they distilled it back? :x
A significant part of it is that with Opus 5.5, cache reads are priced at 5% of inputs, instead of 10% for previous models.
If enough people keep saying it I'm sure they will nerf it