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

Issue: Claude Code is unusable for complex engineering tasks with Feb updates

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 829 posts

Re: Issue: Claude Code is unusable for complex engineering tasks with Feb updates

#101

Post by nrds »

landonxjames wrote: post #13
petcat wrote: post #12

I have found that Claude Opus 4.6 is a better reviewer than it is an implementer. I switch off between Claude/Opus and Codex/GPT-5.4 doing reviews and implementations, and invariably Codex ends up having to do multiple rounds of reviews and requesting fixes before Claude finally gets it right (and then I review). When it is the other way around (Codex impl, Claude review), it's usually just one round of fixes after t…

I have noticed this as well. I frequently have to tell it that we need to do the correct fix (and then describe it in detail) rather than the simple fix. And even then it continues trying to revert to the simple (and often incorrect) fix.

You have to throw the context away at that point. I've experienced the same thing and I found that even when I apparently talk Claude into the better version it will silently include as many aspects of the quick fix as it thinks it can get away with.

Re: Issue: Claude Code is unusable for complex engineering tasks with Feb updates

#107

Post by robwwilliams »

riskassessment wrote: post #67
matheusmoreira wrote: post #33

That analysis is pretty brutal. It's very disconcerting that they can sell access to a high quality model then just stealthily degrade it over time, effectively pulling the rug from under their customers.

Stealthily degrade the model or stealthily constrain the model with a tighter harness? These coding tools like Claude Code were created to overcome the shortcomings of last year's models. Models have gotten better but the harnesses have not been rebuilt from scratch to reflect improved planning and tool use inherent to newer models. I do wonder how much all the engineering put into these coding tools may actually in…

Agree: it is Anthropic's aggressive changes to the harnesses and to the hidden base prompt we users do not see. Clearly intended to give long right tail users a haircut.

Re: Issue: Claude Code is unusable for complex engineering tasks with Feb updates

#108

Post by nyeah »

bityard wrote: post #81

The assertion in the issue report is that Claude saw a sharp decline in quality over the last few months. However, the report itself was allegedly generated by Claude. Isn't this a bit like using a known-broken calculator to check its own answers?

If a known-broken calculator claims it's broken, I more or less concur. (Chain of reasoning omitted here.)

Re: Issue: Claude Code is unusable for complex engineering tasks with Feb updates

#109

Post by layer8 »

schnebbau wrote: post #102

This has to be load related. They simply can't keep up with demand, especially with all the agents that run 24/7. The only way to serve everyone is to dial down the power.

In TFA, the analysis shows that the customer is using more tokens than before, because CC has to iterate longer to get things right. So at least in the presented case, “dialing down the power” appears to have been counterproductive.

Re: Issue: Claude Code is unusable for complex engineering tasks with Feb updates

#110

Post by jonnycoder »

ivanech wrote: post #23
petcat wrote: post #12

I have found that Claude Opus 4.6 is a better reviewer than it is an implementer. I switch off between Claude/Opus and Codex/GPT-5.4 doing reviews and implementations, and invariably Codex ends up having to do multiple rounds of reviews and requesting fixes before Claude finally gets it right (and then I review). When it is the other way around (Codex impl, Claude review), it's usually just one round of fixes after t…

Hmm in my experience (I've done a lot of head-to-heads), Opus 4.6 is a weaker reviewer than GPT 5.4 xhigh. 5.4 xhigh gives very deep, very high-signal reviews and catches serious bugs much more reliably. I think it's possible you're observing Opus 4.6's higher baseline acceptance rate instead of GPT 5.4's higher implementation quality bar.

I agree, I use codex 5.4 xhigh as my reviewer and it catches major issues with Opus 4.6 implementation plans. I'm pretty close to switching to codex because of how inconsistent claude code has become.
Post reply on HN