Anthropic tries to hide Claude's AI actions. Devs hate it

Post by parhamn » Mon, Feb 16, 2026, 8:49 PM UTC

WA wrote: post #183

parhamn wrote: post #76

"Hiding" is doing some heavy lifting here. You can run --json and see everything pretty much (besides the system prompt and tool descriptions).... I love the terminal more than the next guy but at some point it feels like you're looking at production nginx logs, just a useless stream of info that is very difficult to parse. I vibe coded my own ADE for this called OpenADE ( https://github.com/bearlyai/openade ) it use…

Why does it say "Works with your existing Claude Code subscription"? I thought Anthropic banned use of CC subscriptions in third-party software?

Post by semiquaver » Mon, Feb 16, 2026, 9:01 PM UTC

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #210

buschleague wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly why enforcement needs to be architectural. The "challenges around maintainability and scalability" your clients hit exist because their AI workflows had zero structural constraints. The output quality problem isn't the model, it's the lack of workflow infrastructure around it.

Is this not just “build a better prompt” in more words? At what point do we realize that the best way to prompt is with formal language? I.e. a programming language?

Post by saagarjha » Mon, Feb 16, 2026, 9:27 PM UTC

thdxr wrote: post #58

DrammBA wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terminal scrolling opens a big can of worms for them, I doubt they'll ever implement it. The best you can do is enable scrollbars in opencode so you can quickly jump places.

we are going to implement this

Post by anonzzzies » Mon, Feb 16, 2026, 9:45 PM UTC

KurSix wrote: post #135

anonzzzies wrote: post #47

We have been playing with glm4.7 on cerebras which I hope to be the near future for any model; it generates 1000s of lines when you recover from a sneeze : it's absolutely irrelevant if you can see what it does because there is no way you can read it live (at 1000s of tokens/s) and you are not going to read it afterwards. Catching it before it does something weird is just silly; you won't be able to react. Works grea…

That holds up for code generation (where tokens fly by), but not for tool use. The agent often stalls between tool calls, and those are exactly the moments I need to see what it's planning, not just stare at a blank screen

Post by thesz » Mon, Feb 16, 2026, 10:19 PM UTC

adastra22 wrote: post #207

thesz wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then spin up a new agent to decide which approach of the three is best on the merits. Repeat this analysis in fresh contexts and sample until there is clear consensus on one. If there are several agents doing analysis of solutions, how do you define a consensus? Should it be unanimous or above some threshold? Are agents scores soft or hard? How threshold is defined if scores are soft? There is a whole lot of scienc…

We have a voting algorithm that we use, but we're not at the level of confidential disclosure if we proceed further in this discussion. There's lots of research out there into unbiased voting algorithms for consensus systems.