I just started using Claude Sonnet 5. Are all the Claude models like these, or are these just new things? Saw it was new.

Could be Claude phrasing things strangely, but it seems to have made up information some of which was true some of which was false.

Whatever pre release model it was (im guessing gpt-6), it's possible that mythos would also have found it.

TLDR context- unreleased openai model broke out of it's sandbox coz it couldnt solve a problem on cybergym, so it went out and hacked into HF in order to cheat and give the results. Yes this is not fiction.

The point being that this shows how important it is now to be in the good graces of the AI giants anthropic and openai. If anthropic had chosen to give mythos to HF, they may not have been attacked. I believe they are partially responsible for feeling like HF and so many others werent "important enough" for anthropic to extend access.

If not for open source GLM 5.2, HF wouldnt have been able to defend against the unreleased gpt at all perhaps. Because fable would simply reroute to opus 4.8, and not help at all with "dangerous cyberstuff".

I'm Oliwier, 17, high school student in Poland, building Axon solo for the past several months. It's an AI assistant built around memory you can actually see and edit, and it only points out a behavioral pattern when it has the receipts to prove it.

The build story, since this is the Claude sub:

First versions ran on Gemini 2.5 Pro, later Gemini 3. It mostly worked. Then I moved the whole codebase to Claude and asked it to go through everything. What came out of that pass: proper RLS on the database, a faster and cleaner auth flow, a general code quality lift across the repo, and SEO work I kept putting off. Would I have caught the gaps myself eventually? Probably. But later, and the hard way.

The thing that actually surprised me: I asked for a landing page in a single prompt, expecting a template to fix. What came back was genuinely good. I hand-tuned it line by line afterwards, but the one-shot baseline was nothing like what I'd learned to expect from "generate me a landing page".

Some numbers from the build: 54.5M tokens total across the whole project, roughly 10M of that in back-and-forth with Claude. Refactors, reviews, and a lot of "wait, explain why you did it this way".

Full honesty about the stack: Claude built it but doesn't run it. Runtime is Gemma 4 31B, because at consumer margins it's the best quality-per-cost I've found. If you know something that beats it at that size and price, genuinely open to recommendations.

Axon is now part of Anthropic's Claude for Startups program, which as a solo teenage founder still feels a bit unreal.

Still early, testing with a small group. Link: myaxon.pl. 14 days of full access for anyone from this thread who'll actually try to break it and tell me what's wrong. Not looking for "looks cool", looking for "this doesn't work".

And one question for people who've done long builds this way: is Claude noticeably better at auditing code another model wrote than auditing its own? The "fresh model finds the previous model's holes" effect was strong for me, curious if that's universal.

Imagine that Anthropic put their latest model behind a pay wall and you had one day left with Claude before you deleted your account. You have $100 of tokens to use, what would do with it?

i have only used claude tools so far for writing. fable in particular felt outstanding in terms of 1) quality of prose 2) weaving details that made the writing, setting and characters feel alive and real without me having to explicitly tell it to 3) connecting beats seamlessly. opus and sonnet does not even compare. however fable is now no longer offered as part of claudes pro plan. does anyone have any alternatives? or any prompts to feed opus and sonnet so that the output is comparable? thanks :)

Hello guys im not new to Claude but i am to Claude code i have a Pro plan but i dont know how to conserve tokens i have 30min and my tokens are all spended. Im making a game with unity and using Claude code for it i have Claude on a plan that talking is using sonnet 4.6 and then he needs to ask for promission to code and i set it to opus 4.8 but what is the best method to use with extra high or max

Saw people posting usage numbers so I ran mine. Setup: Max 20x, Claude Code, mostly Fable 5 and Opus 4.8. Local history only goes back 37 days.

The numbers, priced at standard API rates:

- $6,677.54 total in 37 days, vs ~$243 of subscription over the same window
- 5.65B tokens: 60M input, 31M output, 5.55B cached
- Average $180/day, peak day $894
- By model: Fable 5 $4,060 (61%), Opus 4.8 $2,200, the rest Sonnet 5 / Opus 4.7 / Haiku

Before the well-actually crowd arrives: yes, API list price isn't Anthropic's actual inference cost, and yes, 98% of those tokens are cache reads billed at 0.1x. ccusage prices cache correctly, which is why the dollar figure is the honest comparison and the raw token count is just for fun.

Run npx ccusage@latest monthly and post yours.
I’m curious to see what your numbers are.

I have been using pro subscription and sure i might hit a limit 3-4 hour in those 5 hours sometimes but after upgrading to max5 i find it pretty usable, i just dont understand do you use fable and opus for everything? Like i think sonnet is pretty capable even for orchestration on a smaller project a lot of tasks even haiku can do fine if you set your architecture right( and yes i do use it daily for work)

IMPORTANT:
- Assume the agent can run for an infinite amount of time, burn and infinite amount of tokens.
- cannot give continual tasks like: always do cyber security passes on every single public git repo you can find
- you cannot add information or edit your prompt or give the agent more info, just once prompt and a run button.

If you’re here, and see that no one has left a comment, just put something, anything, be the first.

TL;DR: I captured two local Claude Code processes with different PIDs and overlapping lifetimes operating under the same session ID. Both were children of the same VS Code extension host process, so the second one was not typed into a terminal. The continuation visible on my PC, reported Done at 21:31. The original continuation kept producing events, returned worker results, and reached a pending Bash permission request at 22:15. Both ran on the PC; my phone only exposed the original process through Remote Control notifications and prompts. Those are not subagents, but different processes.

I'm posting this to find out whether anyone else has seen the same state, particularly with the VS Code integration and Remote Control.

I will use Alice and Bob as aliases to make the chronology readable: Alice is the original local process, and Bob is a second local process launched later with --resume for Alice's session ID.

What the local logs show?

Claude Code stores a session as a JSONL file in which every event points to the one before it through a parentUuid field, so a normal session reads as one straight chain. Subagents don't change that; they write to their own separate transcript files.

At 19:40:27 that chain split. One event ended up with two different direct children:

• At 19:40:32, Alice, the process that had been running since 18:51, continued from it
• At 19:40:43, a second claude.exe started with --resume=<the same session ID>. Its resume marker points at that same parent event. That second process is Bob.

From that moment on, two live processes were extending the same conversation from the same point.

The two-process conclusion is not an impression from the UI. It rests on:

• two different local PIDs;
• one original command line and one --resume command line;
• the same Claude Code session ID in both process records;
• both PIDs recorded as children of the same VS Code extension host process;
• two child UUIDs sharing one parentUuid; and
• overlapping worker activity from both ancestries.

Bob later looked stale, so at 19:53 I typed wts up. He replied and continued normally. The split had already happened around 13 minutes earlier, so that message did not trigger it.

Both ancestries launched workers into the same worktree, and they targeted the same output paths down to the file names. Bob's three workers completed first. When Alice's two workers returned, one reported overwriting output that was already in place, and the other wrote to the same output path again.

At 21:31, Bob's visible continuation reported Done (with the usual "what changed" summary indicating the end of the work). At that moment Alice's two workers were still mid-run (but invisible to me as the UI did not show any messages or prompts or thinking indicators). Everything was quiet for roughly 20 minutes.

Alice did not end there. Her two original workers returned at approximately 21:50 and 22:01. She then asked about another run ( which I approved through Remote Control), and reached a Bash permission prompt at 22:15 (By then I stopped approving and started looking into the issue).

At the final evidence capture at 22:53, both OS processes were still alive and responsive. That includes Bob's PID, so Done should be read as Bob's final response, not as proof that his process exited. When I rechecked the today, both processes were still alive, the transcript hash was unchanged, and Alice's Bash permission request was still pending (because I did not answere it!).

Both executions ran locally on the PC; the phone ran nothing. Bob was the one open in the vs code view I was using. Alice and her prompts were not, so her activity surfaced as Remote Control notifications on my phone, which is what made me investigate (I did keep the process running by approving request after I noticed the problem as I wanted more data to investigate).

What is documented, what is strange?

Anthropic's session documentation says that if the same session is resumed in two terminals without forking, messages from both processes interleave into one transcript, and that an intentional /branch or --fork-session gets a new session ID. So I am not claiming that one transcript receiving messages from two deliberately resumed processes is undocumented.

What I cannot explain though:

1. What made the VS Code extension host start a second --resume process while Alice was still alive? and Why was Alice difficult to discover in the desktop UI?
2. Why could Bob appear finished while Alice still had running workers, tool activity, and later a permission request under the same session identity?
3. At 22:15:30, Alice created her Bash permission request. Eleven milliseconds later, the extension sent that request to my phone through Remote Control. One millisecond after that, the desktop chat panel reported the very same session as idle with hasPendingPermissions: false. How can one session have a permission in flight to my phone and nothing pending on the desktop at the same instant?

That last point may indicate same-ID UI state masking one execution with the state of the other, but that is just me guessing.

On the first point, the process tree rules out a resume typed into a terminal, but the extension host log had rotated past the 19:40 spawn moment, so the triggering action is not in the retained logs. What remains is either an automatic extension lifecycle or reconnect action, or something I did in the extension or through Remote Control without realizing it would spawn a second process (but I really doubt it as the task was a basic linear implementation one with no complexe workflows). I do not have enough evidence to pick one, or to label this a confirmed product bug.

The most concerning part is not the graph shape by itself. It is the ownership ambiguity from a user perspective: A session that appeared finished still had a difficult-to-discover sibling execution capable of accessing the same worktree and requesting permission. Fortunately, I use manual validation for most of my sessions, I cannot imagine how "not okay" this situation would be if I used auto approve for that session.

That creates several risks:

• two divergent contexts can write the same files;
• a permission prompt may belong to an execution the user cannot currently see;
• a linear history can obscure which ancestry produced a tool call or file;
• duplicated workers can consume resources while appearing to be one logical task.
• The actual work is done twice! Actually 33% of the token spent was due to the fork.

Setup and methodology

Environment: Windows 11, Claude Code 2.1.211 through the VS Code extension, Remote Control enabled. All times are 21 July 2026, CEST.

I reconstructed the event trace and execution overlap with a tool I've been maintaining for a while now CheckYourAgent and asked both Fable and Sol to tap into the tool API to do the investigation work. CYA mainly served as a way for me to validate the findings as it is data viz centric and to compute the cost data.

As the title suggests:

- this morning I one-shotted my 5x plan's 5h limit with what should be a routine, below 10% task

- now when 5h limits recovered I ran a /compact to make sure I don't do it again before I proceed, but the compaction alone took 9% of my 5h limit!

I'm pretty sure it's a bug, I was doing only routine work. Curious if someone ran into same issue.

I enjoyed the old one, surely will try this as well. a lot have changed since the first one droped.

Hi there!

I'd like to find an online course to master all claude features such as memory, skills, plugins, MCP etc and to see it practically in use to handle various parts of a business: from coding to marketing sales etc.

What's the best online resource (free or paid) you've come across?

Every new chat with Claude starts from zero — you re-explain the architecture, the decisions, what's half-done. I got tired of that and built SAIPEN: a small continuation protocol that lives in your project as plain markdown (.saipen/STATE.md, BOARD.md, LOG.md). A cold Claude session reads three files, gets next_action, and just continues — no rebriefing.

It's a protocol, not a tool — zero dependencies, nothing to install beyond copying markdown into your Claude Code skills folder. Still early, would love blunt feedback if you try it: [github.com/vacterro/saipen]

If you want to use Fable 5 on Ultracode, this post is not for you. If you want to optimise token usage, please please please Consider the following checklist before posting about poor performance and token burn:

- What's the outcome i want ? Is that clear in one sentence and can be broken down into separate parts?...

- is the task planned out? From the above point, breakdown the separate parts into achievable sub-tasks. General rule: if the outcome involves more than 3 or 4 pieces

- Use model routing or micro-manage sessions more, using low and medium thinking levels and the "right" model for the task. General rule: basic task, basic model.

- Consider your output tokens as more expensive than input. This is the case with API usage, it's likely the case with subscription tokens too

- Start new sessions as soon as you can but as a general rule don't go past 40% of the max context limit

- if you're using subagents, please please, plllleaaaaaase ask "spawn [opus | sonnet] agents. Do not spawn Fable agents."

This should reduce the urge to post drastically

I’m trying to build an app with vibe coding but I’ve noticed my token usage is skyrocketing. I built another app previously and all in all it cost me about $10 to build. Now I’m building a more complex CRM/Claude integration app and it’s already cost me upwards of $150 with the Claude pro subscription. I’ve tried the simple fixes of using /compact every few prompts and also when leaving a session for more than five minutes, but my token usage still seems insane. It’s costing me anywhere from $0.50-$5 per prompt while building the app. I understand the overall cost might be close to a couple hundred dollars, but why is my individual prompt cost so high? How can I reduce it? Please help!!

I'm trying to understand how websites become visible within Claude-generated answers and recommendations.

I've already been researching topics such as:

• High-quality, in-depth content
• Clear site structure
• Strong topical authority
• Technical SEO best practices
• AI-readable content formatting

However, I'm curious about real-world results from people who have actually received traffic or mentions through Claude.

A few questions:

Have you seen measurable traffic coming from Claude referrals?

What type of content seems to get referenced most often?

Does Claude appear to favor highly specialized content over broad topics?

Have you made any content or site changes specifically to improve visibility in Claude?

What strategies have worked (or not worked) in your experience?

I'm particularly interested in learning how Claude discovers and selects sources compared to traditional search engines.

Would love to hear experiences from site owners, content creators, and anyone tracking AI-driven traffic.

Seemed like a pretty simple prompt, but using opus 4.8 max used 6% of my 5 hour credits? Should have used a lighter model? 6% for 1 prompt means you get 16.6 prompts for the 5 hr window, which equates to 3.3 prompts per hour. That seems insane for a pro plan. Maybe I'm just not understanding how to efficiently use my tokens?

Hi 👋

I'm building solo, no dev background, just technical product management experience.

My current workflow:

• Claude Code builds.
• A separate Claude project chat reviews Claude's response, its reasoning, its plan and its process.

That layer catches risks, missing edge cases, architectural mistakes, or places where Claude is drifting. I only step in when a real decision is needed, or when there are multiple possible directions to choose from. Then I get the next prompt to send back to Claude Code.

This has been genuinely useful because, as a non-dev founder, I can catch things I wouldn't notice alone. And the "manager" really catches things !
And I still understand what's happening and get to choose depending on how I see the product when decisions are needed.

The problem is that it's clearly not trivial lol, it's costly and full of friction. This loop consumes a lot of usage, there's a lot of copy-paste between chats, and I need to constantly update CLAUDE.md and log_session.md in my Claude project to avoid desynchronization.

So I'm trying to figure out what the better pattern is for people who want to keep this kind of manager/checker workflow but make it much more efficient.

I'm specifically interested in a process that could:

• keep a manager/checker separate from the builder,
• review Claude's reasoning / plan / response, not just the code,
• have the manager propose the next prompt or ask clarifying questions when needed,
• but reduce usage consumption and manual friction.

Questions I'd love your input on:

1. Do you also use Claude Code with a manager/checker running alongside it? Or is it non-sense ? 😂
2. How do you keep the manager useful without making the process too expensive?
3. At what point do you stop reviewing and just let the builder continue?
4. If you're a non-dev founder : what does your actual workflow look like in practice to catch flaws in Claude Code's plan and implementation, while still understanding what's happening without years of dev experience?

My approach might also be completely off ahah, I'm clearly not an expert here, and I'm genuinely open to someone explaining why this doesn't make sense.

Every MCP web tool I tried had the same problem. The agent calls fetch, hits a Cloudflare wall, and either gives up or hallucinates from the error page HTML. Search means wiring up a paid API key. Crawling means another tool. PDFs are an afterthought. And the whole stack burns 4-5K tokens just to sit in the context window.

I wanted one local MCP server that handled all of it. No keys, no accounts, no third-party scraper routing my queries through their cloud. So I built Hound.

It is at 512 stars as of now and I just shipped the stealth engine, so I am sharing it here.

Anti-bot that actually works

Two-tier fetch. Plain HTTP first because it is fast and 90% of the web does not need a browser. When the site blocks HTTP or serves a JS shell, it escalates to a Patchright anti-detect browser automatically. The agent does not pick the tier. It just gets content back.

The stealth engine is the hard part. Here is what is in it:

• System Chrome detection for real TLS fingerprints (JA4 matches real Chrome traffic, not bundled Chromium)
• 4 coherent fingerprint profiles where platform matches WebGL renderer matches GPU (detectors cross-reference these)
• JS-layer patches injected via commit + evaluate (the only method that works with Patchright's isolated context)
• Canvas noise on both getImageData and toDataURL with per-session deterministic noise (different hash each session)
• Bezier curve mouse movement for Cloudflare v9 behavioral ML scoring
• CF Turnstile solver with human-like mouse path to the checkbox before clicking

Benchmark numbers from v11.1.0:

Canvas noise produces different hashes per session. Memory RSS stays flat across sequential fetches (no browser leak).

Search with zero keys

10 keyless backends in parallel: DuckDuckGo, Brave, Mojeek, Yahoo, Yandex, Startpage, Google, Qwant, plus opt-in Wikipedia and Grokipedia.

Neural reranking with a local ONNX cross-encoder. No API key, no account, no Serper or Tavily billing. Results carry a consensus score showing how many independent indexes agreed on each URL.

A blocked backend gets circuit-broken for 60s. The other 9 keep serving. Search is never dead.

The feature that changed how I use My agent

When Claude fetches a 75-page PDF, you do not need all 75 pages in context. smart_fetch with focus="embedding dimension" returns only the BM25-relevant paragraphs.

One call instead of ten. Post-cache, so no re-fetch.

This alone changed how I use Claude Code for research tasks.

Every response is annotated

Agents branch on these fields instead of guessing from raw HTML.

Token cost

2.7K tokens for all 6 tools. I just rewrote every tool description to teach the agent optimal usage. Decision guides, response signal explanations, workflow patterns. This guidance lives in the tool definitions, not a connect-time block, so it survives context compaction.

6 tools total: fetch, search, crawl, screenshot, cache clear, version. No 12-tool bloat. Every tool earns its slot.

Honest limits

• DataDome with interactive challenges, Akamai, and some Cloudflare Turnstile configs will still block it. The response tells the agent to switch sources instead of pretending it got content.
• Google Search returns 429 (own bot detection, not Cloudflare). The other 9 backends cover for it.
• Sites requiring login are out of scope (Hound does page interaction, not authenticated sessions).
• No keyless local tool is bulletproof against sustained per-IP blocking without a proxy. HOUND_SEARCH_PROXY is there if you have one.

Install

pip install hound-mcp[all] && playwright install chromium

hound -u          # update
hound --doctor    # health check
hound --rollback  # undo last update

GitHub: https://github.com/dondai1234/master-fetch (Star the Repo if you like it 😄 )
Website: https://hound-mcp.pages.dev

MIT, 376 tests. If you try it? tell me what breaks. Especially interested in sites where the stealth browser still gets blocked.

Anthropic is offering $100 in promotional credit for Fable, but I am unclear about how the credit can be used.

Is the $100 credit limited only to the Fable model or experience, or can it also be used within the platform for other Claude models such as Claude Sonnet or Claude Opus?

I would prefer to spend the promotional balance on Sonnet or Opus if that is allowed. Has anyone confirmed whether the credit applies to all Claude models available through Fable, or only to Fable-specific usage?