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

GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

entelligence.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–137 of 137 posts

Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

#131

Post by micw »

rationalist wrote: post #96
jacobgold wrote: post #8

IMHO, Codex with Astra/Sol and Claude with Fable/Opus are all any professional programmer should be using in Sep 2026, if they can afford it. These models are still terrible compared to what we'd actually wish for, but they're the best available. If you can get away with using the $200/mo subscriptions, it's really not even a money thing for most professionals. Almost all of my work is now plan, generate, review, pla…

Unfortunately ChatGPT just stopped allowing people to upgrade to the $200/mo subscription. I started my first paid subscription ($100/mo) last week, and now I want to upgrade and I can't :-(

Also not available in their business offer. So I have now a $20 business plus a $200 "personal" plan in my account.

Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

#132

Post by micw »

jacobgold wrote: post #41
baxtr wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate on your exact setup? Where do you run these models?

Since you asked, the answer is that I built and use an agent multiplexer called Clor https://clor.com I have a $200/mo Claude subscription and a $200/mo Codex subscription, and I'm signed in to both. The Docker containers keep each session isolated, so dev servers, browser testing, etc. can work without conflicts. It includes `/ask-claude` and `/ask-codex` skills that I use very frequently to have the Claude or Codex…

How do you access Claude from the multiplexer? AFAIK Anthrophic allows the use with their official tools only.

I have created wrappers for Codex (https://github.com/micw/codex-wrapper-advanced) and claude (https://github.com/micw/claude-wrapper-advanced) that uses their SDK (Codex) and the CLI (Claude) internally to align with the subscription ToS and still have a common API ;-) This way I can use both in any harness and can easily switch between both.

Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

#133

Post by chis »

extr wrote: post #47
triyambakam wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What have you noticed about Astra? I haven't used Claude models lately so I can't compare but it seems fine compared to 5.6 Sol

- It doesn't write great code. - Occasionally has strange tics around asking for permission for obvious next-steps, implied actions, etc. - It's very expensive, both in terms of tokens and % usage on subscription plans. - Relatedly, effort level is unintuitive. Sometimes it seems like higher effort levels are actually cheaper due to not under-thinking and needing to correct work. But other times they are overkill and…

I gave up on fable 5 after I asked it to critique my PR and it spit out a page of complete nonsense technical jargon. Like, to the point that I had to review the feedback with other models and try to parse what it was saying and ultimately it wasn't even right. Compare to Astra and Sol where I can almost forget there's a model and just speak/read naturally.

I think I should give 5.1 another chance but I am just so triggered by the way it talks after spending so long battling fable 5.

Also I'm starting to wonder if the latest round of models have finally saturated for my personal coding needs. I mean obviously not for taste and judgement, but those barely seem to improve with model generations. For just spitting out a 1000-line feature I've vaguely scoped out, Astra feels basically as good as I need.

Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

#134

Post by sixtyj »

mw888 wrote: post #114
nicce wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As the pace is so fast, you change your mind’s state so frequently and quickly that it may lead to a (mild) burnout. This is so true. Cognitive brute-force always when dealing with AI.

Certainly not always. There's a hedonic adjustment which happens however, where some tasks go very smoothly without much specification and a lot of "you know what I mean" to the LLM, while others then require you to get painfully specific after it badly misinterprets your intent. Or maybe you can just get too spoiled with it grokking your intent, then become so vague that your vague ideas are actually just bad ideas.…

After almost 4 years with LLMs, if my prompt is too vague that I don’t know how to ask precisely, I use this prompt “I have this idea… {description here} How would ideal prompt look like to make idea realize?” And in second round I polish prompt myself. It usually works.

Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

#135

Post by alchemism »

nonethewiser wrote: post #28
VBprogrammer wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You wouldn't ask an agent to review a PR then just copy/paste the output int PR would you? Hasn't everyone already got agents directly adding themselves to PRs and leaving comments (occasionally useful)?

They shouldn't. I personally would never dump a claude code response into a PR body an ask someone to address it. I can't believe any developer would find this to be appropriate or fulfilling the duty of reviewing code. I think it's pretty clear that what you should do instead is go over the result and communicate to the PR author anything you think should be addressed. You don't just say "here are 8 things you might…

I think there is a subtle difference between you-or-I dumping a chat paste into the PR, versus an automated agent directly commenting in a PR. The former carries a human social implication, the latter does not. The weight of them is different.

Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

#136

Post by flohofwoe »

echelon wrote: post #116
holoduke wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Must be a token burner setup. Nice if you really got it to work. Now also add business agents that come up with new features based on actual research. Your automated humanless company is almost there.

They're making money, which is more than most ICs living in cost centers can say. The human code monkey sometimes thinks too highly of the task of coding. That's never once been the job to be done. Every engineer is going to become a master of understanding and measuring need, opportunity cost, organizational support and headwinds, political will, etc. These are the true features of the job. The coding part will fall…

JFC, get off the Kool-Aid dude ;)

...of course you're likely just trolling, hard to say with the drivel coming out of Silicon Valley the last few years. In that case: my apologies and keep up the good work :D

Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

#137

Post by VBprogrammer »

nonethewiser wrote: post #28
VBprogrammer wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You wouldn't ask an agent to review a PR then just copy/paste the output int PR would you? Hasn't everyone already got agents directly adding themselves to PRs and leaving comments (occasionally useful)?

They shouldn't. I personally would never dump a claude code response into a PR body an ask someone to address it. I can't believe any developer would find this to be appropriate or fulfilling the duty of reviewing code. I think it's pretty clear that what you should do instead is go over the result and communicate to the PR author anything you think should be addressed. You don't just say "here are 8 things you might…

That scenario would be annoying but it's not what we have. The agent joins the PR leaves a few comments and responds (with mixed success) to comments. Personally I'd go back to 2020 and never see an LLM again quite happily but that genie is out of the bottle.

Unfortunately, the results speak for themselves and I could probably find dozens of edge cases which the AI code review caught which would have otherwise been missed, probably until production.

Post reply on HN