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

211–220 of 451 posts

Re: Claude Code Routines

#211

Post by lbreakjai »

sidrag22 wrote: post #115
throwup238 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I was "Claude only" for well over a year. Kinda crazy how they seem to be gaining a LOT of public attention the last few months, yet i see this type of sentiment from other devs/myself. for me it started with their opencode drama, and openai's decision to embrace opencode in response. I didn't even know what opencode was prior to that drama, yet now here i am using opencode and a ton of crafted openai agents in my pr…

The most cost-effective way I found to use their models is to use them through a Github copilot licence. Github charges by request, not per token. Asking Opus with high effort to plan a feature in depth "costs" the same as asking it the number of "r" in strawberry.

I've got a setup where GPT5-mini (Free on GH) talks to you to refine and draw the outline of your feature, calls a single Opus subagent to plan it in depth, then calls a single sonnet subagent to implement it.

Github will only charge you for one opus request (With a 3x multiplier) and one sonnet request, whether they consume 50 or 500.000 tokens. I'm running this setup for 9 hours a day at work and I've barely consumed 40% of my monthly allowance.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#212

Post by taspeotis »

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…

https://marginlab.ai/trackers/claude-code/

Re: Claude Code Routines

#213

Post by blcknight »

For the love of god fix bugs and write some fricken tests instead of dropping new shiny things

It is absolutely wild to me you guys broke `--continue` from `-p` TWO WEEKS AGO and it is still not fixed.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#215

Post by windexh8er »

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…

This 10000%.

Anthropic wants a moat, but that ship has sailed. Now all I keep reading about is: token burn, downtime and... Wait for it, another new product!

Anthropic thinks they are pulling one over on the enterprise, and maybe they are with annual lock-in akin to Microsoft. But I really hope enterprise buyers are not this gullible, after all these years. At least with Microsoft the product used to be tangible. Now it's... Well, non-deterministic and it's clear providers will gimp models at will.

I had a Pro Max account only for a short period of time and during that short stint Anthropic changed their tune on how I could use that product, I hit limits on a Max account within hours with one CC agent, and experienced multiple outages! But don't worry, Anthropic gave me $200 in credits for OpenClaw. Give me a break.

The current state of LLM providers is the cloud amplified 100x over and in all the worst ways. I had hopes for Anthropic to be the least shitty but it's very clear they've embraced enshittification through and through.

Now I'm spending time looking at how to minimize agent and LLM use with deterministic automation being the foundation with LLM use only where need be and implemented in simple and cost controllable ways.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#216

Post by consumer451 »

SkyPuncher wrote: post #151
giancarlostoro wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been talking to friends about this extensively, and read all sorts of different social media posts on X where people deep dove things (I'm at work so I don't have any links handy - though I did submit one on HN, grain of salt, unsure how valid it is but it was interesting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47752049 ). I think the real issue stems from the 1 Million token context window change. They did not an…

Yea, I've realized that if I stay under 200k tokens I basically don't have usage issues any more. A bit annoying, but not the end of the world.

super-edit: Sorry, this is not a usage related question, I have move it to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47772971

Here is the question for which I cannot find an answer, and cannot yet afford to answer myself:

In Claude Code, I use Opus 4.6 1M, but stay under 250k via careful session management to avoid known NoLiMa [0] / context rot [1] crap. The question I keep wanting answered though: at ~165k tokens used, does Opus 1M actually deliver higher quality than Opus 200k?

NoLiMa would indicate that with a ~165k request, Opus 200k would suck, and Opus 1M would be better (as a lower percentage of the context window was used)... but they are the same model. However, there are practical inference deployment differences that could change the whole paradigm, right? I am so confused.

Anthropic says it's the same model [2]. But, Claude Code's own source treats them as distinct variants with separate routing [3]. Closest test I found [4] asserts they're identical below 200K but it never actually A/B tests, correct?

Inside Claude Code it's probably not testable, right? According to this issue [5], the CLI is non-deterministic for identical inputs, and agent sessions branch on tool-use. Would need a clean API-level test.

The API level test is what I really want to know for the Claude based features in my own apps. Is there a real benchmark for this?

I have reached the limits of my understanding on this problem. If what I am trying to say makes any sense, any help would be greatly appreciated.

If anyone could help me ask the question better, that would also be appreciated.

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.05167

[1] https://research.trychroma.com/context-rot

[2] https://claude.com/blog/1m-context-ga

[3] https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/35545

[4] https://www.claudecodecamp.com/p/claude-code-1m-context-wind...

[5] https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/3370

Re: Claude Code Routines

#217

Post by michaeldwan »

fragmede wrote: post #185
michaeldwan wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's a tiny amount of friction. Enough that I'll be honest and say that I spend the majority of my time with one vendor's system, but compared the to the fiction of moving from one cloud to another, eg AWS to GCP, the friction between opening Claude code vs codex is basically zero. Have an active subscription and have Claude.md say "read Agents.md". Claude Code routines sounds useful, but at the same time, under A…

you're spot on. I use both Claude Code + OpenCode with many different models and friction is minimal as long as I'm deliberate about it. Hell, even symlinking AGENTS.md to CLAUDE.md is like 80% there.

It's just portability v convenience. But unlike ~15 years ago with cloud compute, it _feels_ like more people are skeptical of convenience, which is interesting.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#218

Post by torginus »

troupo wrote: post #162
_blk wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Off topic, but I found Sonnet useless. It can't do the simplest tasks, like refactoring a method signature consistently across a project or following instructions accurately about what patterns/libraries should be used to solve a problem.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#219

Post by bob1029 »

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…

I am still using the chat completion APIs exclusively. I tried the agent APIs and they're way too opinionated for me. I can see 100% of the tokens I am paying for with my current setup.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#220

Post by ElFitz »

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…

> Not because I can't see a use-case for them, but because I have 0 trust in them

> […]

> Put another way, LLM companies are trying to climb the ladder to be a platform, I have zero interest in that, I was a "dumb pipe", I want a commodity, I want a provider, not a platform.

That is my sentiment precisely, and a big reason why I’ve started moving away from Claude Code in the past few weeks when I realised how much of my workflow was becoming tied to their specific tools.

Claude Code’s "Memory" feature was the tipping point for me, with the model committing feedbacks and learnings to some local, provider-specific path, that won’t persist in the git repo itself.

That’s fine for user preferences, not for workflows, rules, etc.

And the latest ToS changes about not being allowed to even use another CLI made up my mind. At work we were experimenting with an autonomous debug agent using the Claude Code cli programmatically in ephemeral VMs. Now it just returns an error saying we can’t use subscriptions with third-party software… when there is no third-party software involved?

Anyway, so long Claude.

Post reply on HN