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

Claude Code Routines

code.claude.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 451 posts

Re: Claude Code Routines

#161

Post by hayd »

throwup238 wrote: post #77
joshstrange wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropic deserves to have this as the top comment on every HN post. It's absurd that they don't clarify this better and so many people are running around online saying the exact opposite from what their, confusing, docs say. The Chilling Effect of this is real and it gets more and more frustrating that they can't or won't clarify.

It’s also absurd that they’re doing their communication on a bunch of separate platforms like HN, Reddit, and Github with no coherent strategy or consistency as far as I can tell. Can’t I just get policy clarifications in my email like a normal business? I downgraded my $200/mo sub to $20 this past week and I’m going to try out Codex’s Pro plans. Between the cache TTL (does it even affect me? No idea), changes in the…

same. I use pi - and anthropic pricing change have made it usuable with Max. Codex works pretty much the same, not need to change development practice... apart from no 429s (so far).

Re: Claude Code Routines

#162

Post by troupo »

_blk wrote: post #133
dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the current game everybody plays is: * make sure the model maxes out all benchmarks * release it * after some time, nerf it * repeat the same with the next model However, the net sum is positive: in general, models from 2026 are better than those from 2024.

yup, after the token-increase from CC from two weeks ago, I'm now consistently filling the 1M context window that never went above 30-40% a few days ago. Did they turn it off? I used to see the Co-Authored by Opus 4.6 (1M Context Window) in git commits, now the advert line is gone. I never turned it on or off, maybe the defaults changed but /model doesn't show two different context sizes for Opus 4.6 I never asked fo…

They are now literally blaming users for using their product as advertised:

https://x.com/lydiahallie/status/2039800718371307603

--- start quote ---

Digging into reports, most of the fastest burn came down to a few token-heavy patterns. Some tips:

• Sonnet 4.6 is the better default on Pro. Opus burns roughly twice as fast. Switch at session start.

• Lower the effort level or turn off extended thinking when you don't need deep reasoning. Switch at session start.

• Start fresh instead of resuming large sessions that have been idle ~1h

• Cap your context window, long sessions cost more CLAUDE_CODE_AUTO_COMPACT_WINDOW=200000

--- end quote ---

https://x.com/bcherny/status/2043163965648515234

--- start quote ---

We defaulted to medium [reasoning] as a result of user feedback about Claude using too many tokens. When we made the change, we (1) included it in the changelog and (2) showed a dialog when you opened Claude Code so you could choose to opt out. Literally nothing sneaky about it — this was us addressing user feedback in an obvious and explicit way.

--- end quote ---

Re: Claude Code Routines

#163

Post by nine_k »

joshstrange wrote: post #66

LLMs and LLM providers are massive black boxes. I get a lot of value from them and so I can put up with that to a certain extent, but these new "products"/features that Anthropic are shipping are very unappealing to me. Not because I can't see a use-case for them, but because I have 0 trust in them: - No trust that they won't nerf the tool/model behind the feature - No trust they won't sunset the feature (the graveya…

In this regard, the release of open-weight Gemma models that can run on reasonable local hardware, and are not drastically worse than Anthropic flagships, is quite a punch. An M2 Mac Mini with 32GB is about 10 months worth of Claude Max subscription.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#165

Post by rbalicki »

pc86 wrote: post #158
joshstrange wrote: post #66

LLMs and LLM providers are massive black boxes. I get a lot of value from them and so I can put up with that to a certain extent, but these new "products"/features that Anthropic are shipping are very unappealing to me. Not because I can't see a use-case for them, but because I have 0 trust in them: - No trust that they won't nerf the tool/model behind the feature - No trust they won't sunset the feature (the graveya…

> - No trust that they won't nerf the tool/model behind the feature To the contrary, they've proven again and again and again they'll absolutely do that the first chance they get.

You can lessen your dependence on the specific details of how /loop, code routines, etc. work by asking the LLM to do simpler tasks, and instead, having a proper workflow engine be in charge of the workflow aspects.

For example, this demo (https://github.com/barnum-circus/barnum/tree/master/demos/co...) converts a folder of files from JS to TS. It's something an LLM could (probably) do a decent job of, but 1. not necessarily reliably, and 2. you can write a much more complicated workflow (e.g. retry logic, timeout logic, adding additional checks like "don't use as casts", etc), 3. you can be much more token efficient, and 4. you can be LLM agnostic.

So, IMO, in the presence of tools like that, you shouldn't bother using /loop, code routines, etc.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#166

Post by JohnMakin »

michaeldwan wrote: post #147
JohnMakin wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a similar sentiment I heard early on in the cloud adoption fever, many companies hedged by being “multi cloud” which ended up mostly being abandoned due to hostile patterns by cloud providers, and a lot of cost. Ultimately it didn’t really end up mattering and the most dire predictions of vendor lock in abuse didn’t really happen as feared (I know people will disagree with this, but specifically speaking abou…

I credit containerization, k8s, and terraform for preventing vendor lock in. Compute like EC2 or GCE are effectively interoperable. Ditto for managed services for k8s or Postgres. The new products Anthropic is shipping is more like Lambda. Vendor kool-aid lots of people will buy into. What grinds my gears is how Anthropic is actively avoiding standards. Like being the only harness that doesn't read AGENTS.md. I work…

I think there is lock-in, despite those things - for containerization, you're still a lot of the times beholden to the particular runtime that provider prefers, and whatever weird quirks exist there. Migrating can have some surprises. K8s, usually you will go managed there, and while they provide the same functionality, AKS != EKS != GKE at all, at least in terms of managing them and how they plug into everything else. In terraform, migrating from AWS provider to GCP provider will hold a lot of surprises for you for what looks like it should be the exact same thing.

My point was, I don't think it mattered much, and it feels like an ok comparison - cloud offerings are mostly the exact same things, at least at their core, but the ecosystem around them is the moat, and how expensive it is to migrate off of them. I would not be surprised at all if frontier AI model providers go much the same way. I'm pretty much there already with how much I prefer claude code CLI, even if half the time I'm using it as a harness for OpenAI calls.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#167

Post by dbbk »

woeirua wrote: post #150

I don't get the use case for these... Their primary customers are enterprises. Are most enterprises happy with running daily tasks on a third party cloud outside of their ecosystem? I think not. So who are they building these for?

Not really any different to GitHub Actions

Re: Claude Code Routines

#168

Post by masto »

Eldodi wrote: post #49

Anthropic is really good at releasing features that are almost the same but not exactly the same as other features they released the week before

So management can cancel all of last week’s projects when they told us all we had to be using skills because the CEO read about them in the in flight magazine. Routines are the future, baby. DevOps already made a big announcement that they’re centralizing the Routines Hub. If you can’t keep up, we’ll get someone who says they can.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#169

Post by girvo »

pacha3000 wrote: post #116
comboy wrote: post #107

Unrelated, but Claude was performing so tragically last few days, maybe week(s), but days mostly, that I had to reluctantly switch. Reluctantly because I enjoy it. Even the most basic stuff, like most python scripts it has to rerun because of some syntax error. The new reality of coding took away one of the best things for me - that the computer always just does what it is told to do. If the results are wrong it mean…

I'm the first to be tired of everyone, for every model, that says "uuuh became dumber" because I didn't believe them ... until this week! Opus is struggling worse than Sonnet those last two weeks.

My favourite was, Opus 4.6 last night (to be fair peak IST time, late afternoon my time), the first prompt with a small context: jams a copy-pasted function in between a bunch of import statements, doesn't even wire up it's own function and calls it done. Wild, I've not seen failure states like that since old Sonnet 4

Re: Claude Code Routines

#170

Post by timacles »

comboy wrote: post #132
pacha3000 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm the first to be tired of everyone, for every model, that says "uuuh became dumber" because I didn't believe them ... until this week! Opus is struggling worse than Sonnet those last two weeks.

Pretty reassuring to hear that. I was skeptical too, there's a lot of variables like some crap added to memory specific skill or custom instructions interfering with the workflow and what not. But now it was like a toddler that consumes money when talking.

It’s quite an interesting business model actually that the worse it performs to a degree the more money it makes you because of the token churn
Post reply on HN