Sadly Antropic have blocked the usage of claude on it.
No, they haven’t. You can use claude like any other model via API, you just can’t reuse your subscription token.
OpenCode – Open source AI coding agent
121–130 of 700 posts
Re: OpenCode – Open source AI coding agent
#122I’ve been extraordinarily productive with this, their $10 Go plan, and a rigorous spec-driven workflow. Haven’t touched Claude in 2 months. I sprinkle in some billed API usage to power my task-planner and reviewer subagents (both use GPT 5.4 now). The ability to switch models is very useful and a great learning experience. GLM, Kimi and their free models surprised me. Not the best, not perfect, but still very product…
Can you talk more about how you leverage higher quality models for the stuff that counts? Anywhere I can read more on the philosophy of when to use each?
I wrote something about that: https://www.stavros.io/posts/how-i-write-software-with-llms/
Re: OpenCode – Open source AI coding agent
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. That's what I do. Just API keys and you can switch from Opus to GPT especially this week when Opus has been kind of wonky.
Or have Claude write the code and Gemini review it. (Was using GPT for review until the recent Pentagon thing.)
You can also review the code you ship yourself.
Re: OpenCode – Open source AI coding agent
#124Re: OpenCode – Open source AI coding agent
#125OpenCode was the first open source agent I used, and my main workhorse after experimenting briefly with Claude Code and realizing the potential of agentic coding. Due to that, and because it's a popular an open source alternative, I want to be able to recommend it and be enthusiastic about it. The problem for me is that the development practices of the people that are working on it are suboptimal at best; they're con…
I recently listened to this episode from the Claude Code creator (here is the video version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQU9o_5rHC4) and it sounded like their development process was somewhat similar - he said something like their entire codebase has 100% churn every 6 months. But I would assume they have a more professional software delivery process.
I would (incorrectly) assume that a product like this would be heavily tested via AI - why not? AI should be writing all the code, so why would the humans not invest in and require extreme levels of testing since AI is really good at that?
Re: OpenCode – Open source AI coding agent
#126What would be the advantage using this over say VSCode with Copilot or Roo Code? I need to make some time to compare, but just curious if others have a good insight on things.
Re: OpenCode – Open source AI coding agent
#127Re: OpenCode – Open source AI coding agent
#128OpenCode was the first open source agent I used, and my main workhorse after experimenting briefly with Claude Code and realizing the potential of agentic coding. Due to that, and because it's a popular an open source alternative, I want to be able to recommend it and be enthusiastic about it. The problem for me is that the development practices of the people that are working on it are suboptimal at best; they're con…
> The problem for me is that the development practices of the people that are working on it are suboptimal at best; they're constantly releasing at an extremely high cadence, where they don't even spend the time to test or fix things (or even build a proper list of changes for each release), and they add, remove, refine, change, fix, and break features constantly at that accelerated pace.
this is what i notice with openclaw as well. there have been releases where they break production features. unfortunately this is what happens when code becomes a commidity, everyone thinks that shipping fast is the moat but at the expense of suboptimality since they know a fix can be implemented quickly on the next release.
Re: OpenCode – Open source AI coding agent
#129[dead]
Re: OpenCode – Open source AI coding agent
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are absolutely correct that both are evil ... as are most corporations. Still, I feel like "will commit illegal mass murder against their own citizens" is a significant enough degree more evil. I think lots of corporations will help their government murder citizens of other countries, but very few would go so far as to agree to murder their own (fellow) citizens ... just to get a juicy contract.
I see your viewpoint but, to me, "both will happily murder you but one is better because they won't murder ME!" isn't very compelling. Like, I get it, but also it changes nothing for me. They're both bad.
It's not about "won't murder me" it's about "won't murder their own tribe". Humans are very tribal creatures, and we have all sorts of built-in societal taboos about betraying our tribe.
We also have taboos against betraying/murdering/whatever people of other tribes, but those taboos are much weaker and get relaxed sometimes (eg. in war). My point is, it takes significantly more anti-social (ie. evil) behavior to betray your own tribe, in the deepest way possible, than it does to do horrible things to other tribes.
This is just as much true for Russians murdering Ukranians as Ukranians murdering Russians, or any other conflict group: almost all Russians would consider a Russian who helps kill Russians to be more evil than a Russian who kills Ukranians (and vice versa).