Live data from Hacker News

Claude Code has a hardcoded instruction telling Opus 5 not to use subagents

old.reddit.com

11–15 of 15 posts

Re: Claude Code has a hardcoded instruction telling Opus 5 not to use subagents

#11
post #8

Maybe a way to do product segmentation or sandbagging? Then later they can claim gains by removing the restriction on sub-agents.

more likely it's a bug where the agent, when told it can use subagents over prescribes them like a doctor gives out opiods.

One of the reasons why in march people started reporting token burn rates with little effort.

Re: Claude Code has a hardcoded instruction telling Opus 5 not to use subagents

#12

obviously overriding user intent isn't great. it's probably something you can argue about it with, put in your AGENTS.md oh right oops Anthropic refuses to play well CLAUDE.md in strong letters to insist on. but i have to say i'm not super shocked or surprised. simply from the perspective of: i don't think subagents are super great to use anymore! they go off and do a bunch of duplicate research, then come back and d…

> ... but i have to say i'm not super shocked or surprised. simply from the perspective of: i don't think subagents are super great to use anymore The author of the pi.dev minimal harness doesn't like subagents. It's interesting to see that now Anthropic hardcodes instructions trying to steer away from subagents. It could be time for those still believing in those to ponder why that is.

What are you saying

Re: Claude Code has a hardcoded instruction telling Opus 5 not to use subagents

#13

obviously overriding user intent isn't great. it's probably something you can argue about it with, put in your AGENTS.md oh right oops Anthropic refuses to play well CLAUDE.md in strong letters to insist on. but i have to say i'm not super shocked or surprised. simply from the perspective of: i don't think subagents are super great to use anymore! they go off and do a bunch of duplicate research, then come back and d…

> ... but i have to say i'm not super shocked or surprised. simply from the perspective of: i don't think subagents are super great to use anymore The author of the pi.dev minimal harness doesn't like subagents. It's interesting to see that now Anthropic hardcodes instructions trying to steer away from subagents. It could be time for those still believing in those to ponder why that is.

subagents are only useful if the primary agent can construct a strong direction and scoped to a specific change. It keeps the context bloat in the main thread to a minimum but lets the agent flex it's need to re-read things.

A proper harness will learn how to provide better context, existing tool calls, etc and then it's not so wasteful.

Working on a local LLM, subagents are part of how to extend the useful context of the main agent. The other is compaction. Used together, we can get int 1M tokens with only running between 50-85k context.

Post reply on HN