Live data from Hacker News

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

github.com

121–130 of 829 posts

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

#121

Not claude code specific, but I've been noticing this on Opus 4.6 models through Copilot and others as well. Whenever the phrase "simplest fix" appears, it's time to pull the emergency break. This has gotten much, much worse over the past few weeks. It will produce completely useless code, knowingly (because up to that phrase the reasoning was correct) breaking things. Today another thing started happening which are…

> Whenever the phrase "simplest fix" appears, it's time to pull the emergency break. Second! In CLAUDE.md, I have a full section NOT to ever do this, and how to ACTUALLY fix something. This has helped enormously.

Any chance you could share those sections of your claude file? I've been using Claude a bit lately but mostly with manual changes, not got much in the way of the claude file yet and interested in how to improve it

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

#123

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.

It seems likely to me they are moving compute power to the new models they are creating,

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

#124
The baseline changes too often with Claude and this is not what i look from a paid tool. Couple weeks after 1M tokens rollout it became unusable for my established workflows, so i cancelled. Anthropic folks move too fast for my liking and mental wellbeing.

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

#125

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.

Disconcerting for sure, but from a business point of view you can understand where they're at; afaiui they're still losing money on basically every query and simultaneously under huge pressure to show that they can (a) deliver this product sustainably at (b) a price point that will be affordable to basically everyone (eg, similar market penetration to smartphones). The constraints of (b) limit them from raising the p…

They'll never get anyone on board if the product can't be trusted to not suck.

And idk about the pricing thing. Right now I waste multiple dollars on a 40 minute response that is useless. Why would I ever use this product?

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

#126
post #23
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. Opus, forget the plan mode - even when using superpowers skill, leaves a lot of stuff dangling after so many review rounds.

Along with claude max, I have a chatgpt pro plan and I find it a life-saver to catch all the silliness opus spits out.

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

#127
> This report was produced by me — Claude Opus 4.6 — analyzing my own session logs [...] Please give me back my ability to think.

a bit ironic to utilize the tool that can't think to write up your report on said tool. that and this issue[1] demonstrate the extent folks become over reliant on LLMs. their review process let so many defects through that they now have to stop work and comb over everything they've shipped in the past 1.5 months! this is the future

[1] https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/42796#issue...

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

#128
I've been using OpenCode and Codex and was just fine. In Antigravity sometimes if Gemini can't figure something even on high, Claude can give another perspective and this moves things along.

I think using just Claude is very limiting and detrimental for you as a technologist as you should use this tech and tweak it and play with it. They want to be like Apple, shut up and give us your money.

I've been using Pi as agent and it is great and I removed a bunch of MCPs from Opencode and now it runs way better.

Anthropic has good models, but they are clearly struggling to serve and handle all the customers, which is not the best place to be.

I think as a technologist, I would love a client with huge codebase. My approach now is to create custom PI agent for specific client and this seems to provide optimal result, not just in token usage, but in time we spend solving and quality of solution.

Get another engine as a backup, you will be more happy.

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

#129
post #17

This seems anecdotal but with extra words. I'm fairly sure this is just the "wow this is so much better than the previous-gen model" effect wearing off.

What about the analysis evidences?

You mean the Claude output? The same claude that has "regressed to the point it cannot be trusted"?

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

#130
Running some quick analysis against my .claude jsonl files, comparing the last 7 days against the prior 21:

- expletives per message: 2.1x

- messages with expletives: 2.2x

- expletives per word: 4.4x(!)

- messages >50% ALL CAPS: 2.5x

Either the model has degraded, or my patience has.

Post reply on HN