151–160 of 160 posts
The #1 goal for Anthropic and others is to take the longest running process possible and make it entirely opaque to the developer. It's the only way they can build a moat for a commodity. I would highly recommend building your own multi-stage orchestration flows because then you'll get a much better idea of where you need to be in the loop, and where you can save money. Once entire organisations are functioning only…
I don't really get this. At this point, my limiting factor is not how quickly Claude can self-trudge through code. It's whether Claude is going to do the task correctly or not. I need more mechanisms for controlling long-running sessions and dynamically injecting my thoughts, correction, and nudges rather than faster ways to burn through my tokens without knowing if the results are going to be correct.
I am getting so confused when to use what... agents, sub-agents, tasks, team mates, /goal, /loop, and now workflow. Each with different degrees of effort. Don't make me think. All these knobs are also exposed in ChatGPT, which I am more familiar when chatting. Which one of the models? Do I go Instant, Thinking, Pro? Extended Pro? Oh no, maybe I need Deep Research. Sometimes I think it's on purpose. I fear if I try a…
That's what product management is for.
A few of us from the Claude Code team will be hanging around if anyone has questions! Very excited for this launch -- dynamic workflows have been a game changer for engineering here at Anthropic. Can't wait to hear what you think.
Does anyone at Anthropic use the iOS app? Ever?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should secrets be built in? What's the issue with tool use and something like 1password's or Vault's CLI?
Another piece to pay for.
Personally, I am happy paying 1password for my personal secret management. Their security credibility and bona fides are well-established. I'd strongly consider them for a business contract too.
I don't really get this. At this point, my limiting factor is not how quickly Claude can self-trudge through code. It's whether Claude is going to do the task correctly or not. I need more mechanisms for controlling long-running sessions and dynamically injecting my thoughts, correction, and nudges rather than faster ways to burn through my tokens without knowing if the results are going to be correct.
I tried this out yesterday - lucky enough to have access through EAP at work. The workflows that are generated are quite good - smart parallelisation and phasing. End results for larger chunks of work are also much better, which I attribute to more of the work having clean context windows (Opus 4.7 is unusable past 200k conversation length, and each subagent ends up using less than that IME). They also seem to have a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know, maybe I'm doing it wrong but I feel LLMs add a slop debt, and each agent pass just exuberates it. Like I had an LLM implement a spec and said it was done... Except it had a ton of `casts` everywhere. Okay, my bad, I should have been clear "NO CASTS", so I use the LLM to remove the casts, except it just kept making things more and more complicated and ugly. It took me taking a break and having a shower t…
How would you prevent a junior engineer doing this mistake? Presumably, you would setup a lint rule. Do the same for LLMs. Run the linter after each edit through a hook, give feedback to the LLM. Write your lint rules with clear explanations of why the behavior is a problem, and nudges to the good behavior.