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

The new rules of context engineering for Claude 5 generation models

claude.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 434 posts

Re: The new rules of context engineering for Claude 5 generation models

#201

Post by adithyassekhar »

nickm12 wrote: post #177

During the rise of agentic assistance, I've gotten the advice that "If the generated code isn't what you want, fix the steering, not the code". I've also been advised to not change the sometimes verbose comments and documentation that agents write because "it will help them the next time they look at the code". I've been skeptical and these guidelines validate this. I continue to document code and write specs as I've…

“Code should be self documenting.” I know cliche but if your code does need to do something it usually doesn’t do or has a complex logic or an edge case where it’s no longer following it’s standard flow, add all those as test cases.

If the flow is too complex, inherits from all over the place and you must put that as a comment, ask claude to write a test for that, it’s usually good at those.

Re: The new rules of context engineering for Claude 5 generation models

#202

Post by zormino »

frio wrote: post #30
Fordec wrote: post #11

This all strikes me as an effort to move tailoring the harness out of the easily transferable .md file into specific Anthropic tooling to increase lock in. I've been running Opus 5 today and it's already done accidental deletions, made far more mistakes and worked around deliberate hook controls than previous Opus versions combined. Also it looks like token usage is up as it fails at the task the first time around mu…

I’m not excited about using Opus 5, mainly because the way that I work atm — essentially peer programming — means I sandbox the agents and work with them closely. Opus 4.x encounters the sandbox and moves on with its day; Fable becomes increasingly fixated on it and does less and less of the actual task, focussing more and more on the limit it reached. I worry that, from your description, Opus 5 will do the same.

Ive been using btrfs snapshots and some auto generated isolation rules plus a git ceiling at the mount root for the btrfs image (have to do this in wsl, stupid work computer). it's worked really well and fable hasn't had any issues with the "sandbox" (obviously not really but it works well enough)

Re: The new rules of context engineering for Claude 5 generation models

#204

Post by dwroberts »

shhsushs wrote: post #196
mycentstoo wrote: post #7

We should design a specific language to make sure that we can encode the exact requirements that we want. Something that has a limited set of keywords that are explicit. Wait a minute...

This is getting tiring. Code is not The Specification. It’s a specification of God knows what. Riddled with irrelevant, non-essential details wrapping The Problem - which in most cases will amount to something the size of a large pebble - in multiple layers of fur jackets, stored in boxes, which themselves are stored in multiple ridiculous moveable warehouse (if you’re lucky). We have a standard for communication, it…

> Riddled with irrelevant, non-essential details

You’re describing natural language too

Re: The new rules of context engineering for Claude 5 generation models

#205

Post by oezi »

chmod775 wrote: post #113
Retr0id wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until recently I thought "load-bearing seam" was a satirical exaggeration - I'd seen both claudisms independently but never combined. But a couple of days ago it hit me with "The key structural point first: the only load-bearing seam is [...]"

It's language and speech patterns that seem designed to trick readers into believing that claims are correct, even when the claims aren't based on anything and are possibly wrong. It was rewarded for this during training for some reason. Alternative theory: The LLMs only way to "think" about abstract concepts is through language, and this leaks into into conversation it has with humans. But humans generally prefer to…

Maybe we need LLMs which have an internal dialogue rather than the current monologue.

Re: The new rules of context engineering for Claude 5 generation models

#206

Post by nullbio »

fastball wrote: post #157
nullbio wrote: post #134

We want more control, not less. This (among many others) is the reason I use GPT over Claude. It adheres very closely to your instructions and rules. You can build up your own workflows and systems as a result. Claude just does whatever it wants, regardless of what you tell it. It's a miserable experience. Claude is what you use when you want to one-shot a simple cookie-cutter product that has no nuance in it. A prod…

The fact you called it ChatGPT instead of Codex makes me suspicious of this entire comment.

Weird take. I meant to say GPT, not ChatGPT. Was referring to the model, not the harness.

Re: The new rules of context engineering for Claude 5 generation models

#207

Post by yurishimo »

radio879 wrote: post #152
chrisweekly wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There is a depth of thought untouched by words, and deeper still a depth of formless feeling untouched by thought." - Rilke Your assertion that we don't think in language is questionable. It runs counter to the lived experience of developing thoughts through writing ("writing isn't capturing thinking -- it is thinking"). I believe there is more to thought than language alone, but I also feel quite sure that language…

There are people who do not have any words in their heads at all when they think, and there doesn't seem to be any reason to disbelieve them. It may have been proven or at least observed in fMRI. Some people think in visuals. I think some of this was discovered somewhat recently

And some people can’t see any pictures in their minds! My partner is one of these people. We both really enjoy reading fiction books, often with a fantasy or sci-fi bent and it genuinely amazes me that they can experience these books in a way that feels wholly alien to me.

The fun of reading to me is constructing the world in my minds eye and turning the words on the page into a visual experience only found in my mind using imagination. This is a reason why many people get upset when a movie adaptation is made and the actor chosen for their favorite character feels very off or wrong; their mental picture of that character is totally different and it causes dissonance that our brains don’t like. For my partner this is a non issue because they never make a mental image of the person, so the movie is genuinely the first time they are “seeing” a physical representation of the character.

The human mind is genuinely amazing and fascinating and I believe that this range of human experience will be the final 20% for “AI” that might never be reproducible.

Re: The new rules of context engineering for Claude 5 generation models

#208

Post by TeMPOraL »

mycentstoo wrote: post #7

We should design a specific language to make sure that we can encode the exact requirements that we want. Something that has a limited set of keywords that are explicit. Wait a minute...

This nonsense again?

Yes, feel free to write code. It exists.

In fact, why did you write your comment in English and not code? It's imprecise and doesn't explicitly state exactly what you wanted to communicate, and is instead full of ambiguity and open to interpretation.

Re: The new rules of context engineering for Claude 5 generation models

#209

Post by madduci »

threecheese wrote: post #72

They are imo over-relying on Claude automemory here, which is terrible at contextualizing memory access and makes huge leaps that don’t make sense - except when it’s actually useful, which makes the problem even worse for an operator who can’t see the thinking process anymore. Yes, I worked on a related project, no I don’t want you to use those memories to make assumptions which emerge as decisions that I didn’t want…

I believe this is a move to make user spent even much more tokens

Re: The new rules of context engineering for Claude 5 generation models

#210

Post by dxdm »

chickensong wrote: post #159
Retr0id wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until recently I thought "load-bearing seam" was a satirical exaggeration - I'd seen both claudisms independently but never combined. But a couple of days ago it hit me with "The key structural point first: the only load-bearing seam is [...]"

People make fun of the language, rightfully so in some cases, but also it's often quite effective language. "load-bearing seam" communicates quite a lot in very few characters.

It's a clunky metaphor, and it's used clumsily: not for the sake of its clunkiness, but by mixing two decent individual parts in an attempt to have them reinforce each other, but ending up with something weaker.

It communicates an absence of thought and awareness, blind groping at building blocks without understanding. It's borderline vapid, and quite annoying.

Post reply on HN