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

231–240 of 451 posts

Re: Claude Code Routines

#231

Post by mcmcmc »

stavros wrote: post #189
joshstrange wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The restrictions are dumb not because they're lower than any of us want them to be, but because they're unclear. Every time Claude comes up on Hacker News, someone asks this question. And every time people chime in to agree that they also are unclear or someone weighs in saying, no, it's totally clear, while proceeding not to point at any official resource and/or to "explain" the rules in a that is incompatible with…

There's another part that's bullshit: If you've paid for an annual subscription, for a given number of tokens, welp, now you're getting fewer tokens. They've decreased the limits mid-subscription. How is it not bait-and-switch to pay for something for a year only to have something else delivered?

It is, but good luck getting the FTC to care. Maybe the EU will do something about it.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#232

Post by ElFitz »

cush wrote: post #100
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…

You could so easily build your own /schedule. This is hardly a feature driving lock-in

Yes, but once everything has been deployed through their web UI or the cli command, and fine-tuned over the weeks and months as kinks get ironed out, how do you port it all to your own?

Nothing insurmontable or even complex; just laborious. Friction. That’s all it takes to lock users in.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#233

Post by onenite »

consumer451 wrote: post #216
SkyPuncher wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

2 parent comments above say that you can use older version of claude code with opus 200k to compare. my guess is that eventually you’ll be able to set it in model settings yourself

Re: Claude Code Routines

#234

Post by chickensong »

JohnMakin wrote: post #210
chickensong wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> specifically speaking about aws, the predictions vs what actually happened is a massive gap I guess I'm one of the people who disagree, specifically about AWS. I think a lot of companies just watch their bill go up because they don't have the appetite to unwind their previous decision to go all-in on AWS. Ignoring egress fees, migrating storage and compute isn't hard, it's all the auxiliary stuff that's locked in,…

the AWS things you mentioned you don’t need to mess with at all, with the exception of IAM, which doesn’t cost anything at all. your experience just hasn’t been my experience I guess. The more managed the service you use, the more costs you are going to pay - for a very long time I’ve got by with paying for compute, network, and storage on the barebones services. If you want to pay for convenience you will pay for it…

We're talking about add-on services, and you were comparing to cloud providers and implying it doesn't really matter because vendor lock-in didn't really happen as feared. I made the case that it's the add-on services that create the lock-in.

> I’ve got by with paying for compute, network, and storage on the barebones services.

Yes, as I mentioned, that type of migration isn't difficult, which is akin to migrating to a different model provider, but that's not what we're discussing. You can't hand wave the issue away if you're not even talking about the the topic at hand.

That said, I agree with your suspicions of how it'll shake out in the end, because most businesses behave the same way, and always try and lock-in their customers.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#235

Post by ElFitz »

cortesoft wrote: post #61
unshavedyak wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait we can't use claude -p around other tools? What is the point of the JSON SDK then? Anthropic is confusing here, ugh. edit : And specifically i'm making an IDE, and trying to get ClaudeCode into it. I frankly have no clue when Claude usage is simply part of an IDE and "okay" and when it becomes a third party harness..

I was pretty sure that claude -p would always be fine, but I looked at the TOS and it is a bit unclear. It says in the prohibited use section: > Except when you are accessing our Services via an Anthropic API Key or where we otherwise explicitly permit it, to access the Services through automated or non-human means, whether through a bot, script, or otherwise. So it seems like using a harness or your own tools to cal…

15? Per month?

What’s even the point?

Re: Claude Code Routines

#236

Post by chickensong »

AshamedBadger56 wrote: post #226
JohnMakin wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the AWS things you mentioned you don’t need to mess with at all, with the exception of IAM, which doesn’t cost anything at all. your experience just hasn’t been my experience I guess. The more managed the service you use, the more costs you are going to pay - for a very long time I’ve got by with paying for compute, network, and storage on the barebones services. If you want to pay for convenience you will pay for it…

> the AWS things you mentioned you don’t need to mess with at all not the op, but I suspect they were meaning it's a huge pain migrating to a different cloud provider when all those features mentioned are in use. not that managing them is a mess in AWS.

Correct.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#237

Post by uriegas »

jeppester wrote: post #184
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 always hated SEO because it was not an exact science - like programming was. Too bad we've now managed to turn programming into the same annoying guesswork.

I don't really think it is turning into a guesswork. A lot of people wrote bad code before by pasting things from the internet they didn't understand. I think some people are using LLMs the same way, but it does not mean that programming has changed. But I do think that code quality is being neglected nowadays.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#238

Post by haukem »

I used the claude-code-action GitHub Action to review PRs before, but it is pretty buggy e.g. PRs from forked repositories do not work, and I had to fix it myself. This should work better with Claude Code Routines. claude-code-action only works with the API and is therefore pretty expensive compared to the subscription.

I think LLM reviews on PRs are helpful and will reduce the load on maintainers. I am working on OpenWrt and was approved for the Claude Code Max Open Source Program today. The cap of 15 automatic Claude Code Routines runs per day is a bit low. We get 5 to 20 new PRs per day and I would like to run it on all of them. I would also like to re-run it when authors make changes, in that case it should be sufficient to just check if the problems were addressed.

Is it possible to get more runs per day, or to carry over unused ones from the last 7 days? Maybe 30 on Sonnet and 15 on Opus?

When I was editing a routine, the window closed and showed an error message twice. Looks like there are still some bugs.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#239

Post by minimaxir »

stavros wrote: post #191
minimaxir wrote: post #2

Given the alleged recent extreme reduction in Claude Code usage limits ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47739260 ), how do these more autonomous tools work within that constraint? Are they effectively only usable with a 20x Max plan? EDIT: This comment is apparently [dead] and idk why.

It's not alleged: https://www.ghacks.net/2026/03/27/anthropic-reduces-claude-s...

That's a separate change to what the linked HN post described.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#240

Post by uriegas »

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 think AI labs are realizing that they no longer have any competitive advantage other than being the incumbents. Plus hardware improvements might render their models irrelevant for most tasks.
Post reply on HN