Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude Code Routines

code.claude.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 451 posts

Re: Claude Code Routines

#61

Post by cortesoft »

unshavedyak wrote: post #39
andai wrote: post #25

I'm a little confused on the ToS here. From what I gathered, running `claude -p ` on cron is fine, but putting it in my Telegram bot is a ToS violation (unless I use per-token billing) because it's a 3rd party harness, right? (`claude -p` being a trivial workaround for the "no 3rd party stuff on the subscription" rule) This Routines feature notably works with the subscription, and it also has API callbacks. So if my…

Wait we can't use claude -p around other tools? What is the point of the JSON SDK then? Anthropic is confusing here, ugh. edit : And specifically i'm making an IDE, and trying to get ClaudeCode into it. I frankly have no clue when Claude usage is simply part of an IDE and "okay" and when it becomes a third party harness..

I was pretty sure that claude -p would always be fine, but I looked at the TOS and it is a bit unclear.

It says in the prohibited use section:

> Except when you are accessing our Services via an Anthropic API Key or where we otherwise explicitly permit it, to access the Services through automated or non-human means, whether through a bot, script, or otherwise.

So it seems like using a harness or your own tools to call claude -p is fine, AS LONG AS A HUMAN TRIGGERS IT. They don’t want you using the subscription to automate things calling claude -p… unless you do it through their automation tools I guess? But what if you use their automation tool to call your harness that calls claude -p? I don’t actually know. Does it matter if your tool loops to call claude -p? Or if your automation just makes repeated calls to a routine that uses your harness to make one claude -p call?

It is not nearly as clear as I thought 10 minutes ago.

Edit: Well, I was just checking my usage page and noticed the new 'Daily included routine runs' section, where it says you get 15 free routine runs with your subscription (at least with my max one), and then it switches to extra usage after that. So I guess that answers some of the questions... by using their routine functionality they are able to limit your automation potential (at least somewhat) in terms of maxing out your subscription usage.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#62

Post by joshstrange »

andai wrote: post #25

I'm a little confused on the ToS here. From what I gathered, running `claude -p ` on cron is fine, but putting it in my Telegram bot is a ToS violation (unless I use per-token billing) because it's a 3rd party harness, right? (`claude -p` being a trivial workaround for the "no 3rd party stuff on the subscription" rule) This Routines feature notably works with the subscription, and it also has API callbacks. So if my…

Anthropic deserves to have this as the top comment on every HN post. It's absurd that they don't clarify this better and so many people are running around online saying the exact opposite from what their, confusing, docs say.

The Chilling Effect of this is real and it gets more and more frustrating that they can't or won't clarify.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#63

Post by tclancy »

Eldodi wrote: post #49

Anthropic is really good at releasing features that are almost the same but not exactly the same as other features they released the week before

And or things I’ve spent a bunch of time building already. And naming them the same. I should have trademarked “dispatch”!

Re: Claude Code Routines

#64

Post by TacticalCoder »

minimaxir wrote: post #59
breakingcups wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be vouched for now, no longer dead for me.

Hmm, I can't edit the original comment to retract that edit either. Either my account is flagged for something or HN is being weird.

Everything looks good to me: you don't look like you have a flagged account (but then I don't work for HN).

Re: Claude Code Routines

#65

Post by TacticalCoder »

airstrike wrote: post #16

Still no moat. The reason someone would use this vs. third-party alternatives is still the fact that the $200/mo subscription is markedly cheaper than per-token API billing. Not sure how this works out in the long term when switching costs are virtually zero.

> Not sure how this works out in the long term when switching costs are virtually zero.

All these not really helpful, but vendor specific, "bonuses" sounds like a way to try to lock people in, to try to raise the switching cost.

I'm using, on purpose, a simple process so that at any time I can switch AI provider.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#66

Post by joshstrange »

LLMs and LLM providers are massive black boxes. I get a lot of value from them and so I can put up with that to a certain extent, but these new "products"/features that Anthropic are shipping are very unappealing to me. Not because I can't see a use-case for them, but because I have 0 trust in them:

- No trust that they won't nerf the tool/model behind the feature

- No trust they won't sunset the feature (the graveyard of LLM-features is vast and growing quickly while they throw stuff at the wall to see what sticks)

- No trust in the company long-term. Both in them being around at all and them not rug-pulling. I don't want to build on their "platform". I'll use their harness and their models but I don't want more lock-in than that.

If Anthropic goes "bad" I want to pick up and move to another harness and/or model with minimal fuss. Buying in to things like this would make that much harder.

I'm not going to build my business or my development flows on things I can't replicate myself. Also, I imagine debugging any of this would be maddening. The value add is just not there IMHO.

EDIT: Put another way, LLM companies are trying to climb the ladder to be a platform, I have zero interest in that, I was a "dumb pipe", I want a commodity, I want a provider, not a platform. Claude Code is as far into the dragon's lair that I want to venture and I'm only okay with that because I know I can jump to OpenCode/Codex/etc if/when Anthropic "goes bad".

Re: Claude Code Routines

#67

Post by spelunker »

Eldodi wrote: post #49

Anthropic is really good at releasing features that are almost the same but not exactly the same as other features they released the week before

> In the Desktop app, click New task and choose New remote task; choosing New local task instead creates a local Desktop scheduled task, which runs on your machine and is not a routine.

Oh uh... ok then.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#68

Post by chinathrow »

joshstrange wrote: post #66

LLMs and LLM providers are massive black boxes. I get a lot of value from them and so I can put up with that to a certain extent, but these new "products"/features that Anthropic are shipping are very unappealing to me. Not because I can't see a use-case for them, but because I have 0 trust in them: - No trust that they won't nerf the tool/model behind the feature - No trust they won't sunset the feature (the graveya…

Yeah so better to convert tokens into sw doing the job at close to zero costs running on own systems.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#69

Post by verdverm »

One gripe I have with Claude Code is that the CLI, Desktop app, and apparently the Webapp have a Venn Diagram of features. Plugins (sets of skills and more) are supported in Code CLI, maybe in Cowork (custom fail to import) but not Code Desktop. Now this?

The report that they are 90% Ai code generated seems more likely the more I attempt to use their products.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#70

Post by Someone1234 »

netdur wrote: post #17

didn’t we have several antitrust cases where a vendor used its monopoly to disadvantage rivals? did not anthropic block openclaw?

They did not.

You can still use OpenClaw on their API pricing tier as much as you want. What they did is not allow subscriptions to be used to power automated third-party workloads, including OpenClaw.

Now, is their messaging around this confusing? Absolutely. The whole thing has been handled shambolically. Everyone knows that they lack the compute to keep up, and likely have lower margins on subscriptions than API; but they cannot just say that because investors may be skittish.

Post reply on HN