Analysis of Opus 5's 'Contrition'

#1

Post by slowmovintarget » Tue, Jul 28, 2026, 7:17 PM UTC

Analysis of Opus 5's 'Contrition'
github.com

Re: Analysis of Opus 5's 'Contrition'

#2

Post by slowmovintarget » Tue, Jul 28, 2026, 7:33 PM UTC

[dead]

Re: Analysis of Opus 5's 'Contrition'

#3

Post by urbandw311er » Tue, Jul 28, 2026, 10:27 PM UTC

Does this work? Appreciate honest testimonials from anybody unrelated to the OP or author.

Re: Analysis of Opus 5's 'Contrition'

#4

Post by nightshift1 » Wed, Jul 29, 2026, 2:27 AM UTC

Interesting. I will try some of of those instructions but I don't mind much about the tics.

My actual complaint: end-of-turn summaries that are undecipherable unless you watched the session closely. Both Opus and Fable regularly ends hours of work with status updates phrased in crystal clear terms like:

  "**V2** debug-helper gate (R4d) | Medium-risk | Gate on `?debug=1` URL param at 3 fixture sites — **not** a localStorage flag (`browser_page` clears it every test). 284 debug-API calls ride the fixture, so R4d goes last+alone"

Re: Analysis of Opus 5's 'Contrition'

#5

Post by bomewish » Wed, Jul 29, 2026, 5:03 AM UTC

Bit frustrating. any kind of benchmark or even a few examples showing that this produces better outputs would have been nice.