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

241–250 of 451 posts

Re: Claude Code Routines

#241

Post by fragmede »

ElFitz wrote: post #223
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,…

I am curious, what do people use Cognito for? I’ve never not ended up regretting using it.

Cognito is AWS's customer's customer's user login system, so I, as a SaaS company, would use it so my users can log in to my platform. They charge per-user, so if my platform is going to have millions of users, choosing Cognito is a bad idea that will eat all my money.

However if I only expect to have a handful of (lucrative) users, it's not the worst idea. The other reason to use Cognito is that AWS handles all the user login issues, and costs very few lines of code to use on my end. The fatal security issue is getting hacked, either the platform as a whole, eg S3 bucket with bad perms or user login getting leaked and reused. While obviously no system is unhackable, the gamble is if a homegrown system is more impervious than Cognito (or someone else's eg Supabase). With a large development team where the login system and overall system security isn't going to be an afterthought, I wouldn't think about using Cognito, but where both of those things are an afterthought, I'd at least consider Cognito, or some other managed system.

The ultimate problem with Cognito though is the vendor lock in. (Last I checked, which was years ago) in order to migrate users out, they have to reset their password which would cause users to bounce off your service instead of renewing their subscription.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#242

Post by bluegatty »

elAhmo wrote: post #227
bluegatty wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Codex with 5.4 xhigh. It's a bad communicator but does the job.

You mean codex (client) with GPT 5.4 xhigh? I am using Codex 5.3 (model) through Cursor, waiting for Codex 5.4 model as I had great experience so far with 5.3.

yes codex. it has 5.4.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#243

Post by rahimnathwani »

The docs list the GitHub events that can be used as triggers. This is included in the list:

  Push Commits are pushed to a branch
But when I try to create a routine, the only GitHub events available in the drop down related to pull requests and releases. Nothing available related to pushes/commits or issues. Am I holding it wrong?

Re: Claude Code Routines

#244

Post by jordanarseno »

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 my view, lock-in anxiety is a holdover from a previous era of tech platforms, and it doesn't really apply in an era where frontier agents can migrate you between vendors in hours. So I personally don't see any good worrying about this. On top of that, every major LLM provider is rapidly converging on the same feature set. They watch each other and clone what works. So the "platform" you're building on isn't really Anthropic's platform so much as it is the emerging shared surface area of what LLMs can do. By the time this Routines feature becomes a problem for you, other solutions will have emerged, and I'd be very surprised if you couldnt lift-and-shift very quickly.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#245

Post by dzink »

ElFitz wrote: post #220
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…

They can’t allow third party software because the third parties save the outputs of Claude responses and distill them into new models to compete with Claude.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#246

Post by subscribed »

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

Just wait for the new wave of github issues about things they silently broke or degraded.

Progress, I guess :)

(I had the most hilariously bad session with Sonnet 4.6 today. I asked it a reasonably simple question and linked to resources, it refused to fetch the resources, didn't ask for pdf/txt I could provide, and confidently printed absolute BS, barely in the same category but completely unrelated.

I called it off pointing the idiocy, asked if it wants more data, and requested the hallucination be fixed.

It apologised profusely and hallucinated even worse.

Maybe I'll try Opus 4.6 tomorrow because frankly Gemma-4-E4B was more coherent than that....

Re: Claude Code Routines

#247

Post by a1o »

xienze wrote: post #154
tomwojcik wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question, do we actually know what we're paying for? All I know is it's access to models via cli, aka Claude Code. We don't know what models they use, how system prompt changes or what are the actual rate limits (Yet Anthropic will become 1 trillion dollars company in a moment).

> We don't know what models they use, how system prompt changes or what are the actual rate limits (Yet Anthropic will become 1 trillion dollars company in a moment). Not just that, but there’s really no way to come to an objective consensus of how well the model is performing in the first place. See: literally every thread discussing a Claude outage or change of some kind. “Opus is absolutely incredible, it’s one sh…

I feel like if I start something from scratch with it it gets what feels like 80% right, but then it takes a lot more time to do the last 20%, and if you decide to change scope after or just be more specific it is like it gets dumber the longer you work with it. If you can think truly modular and spend a ton of time breaking your problem in small units, and then work in your units separately then maybe what it does could be maintainable. But even there I am unsure. I spent an entire day trying to get it to do a node graph right - like the visual of it - and it is still so so. But like a single small script that does a specific small thing, yeah, that it can do. You still better make sure you can test it easily though.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#248

Post by s3p »

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…

Can you explain what you meant when you called yourself a dumb pipe? What does that mean

Re: Claude Code Routines

#249

Post by fragmede »

uriegas wrote: post #237
jeppester wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Programming has changed. Agentic coding, where I go back and forth with the AI to generste a spec along with tooling and exit criteria, and then the AI goes off for hour(s) (possibly helped by harness/tooling like Ralph Wiggum), and then do the same thing for a different spec/feature/bug fix and the AI goes off and does that. Repeat until out of tokens. That was previously not how programming went.

We can quibble as to how much that is or is not "programming", but on a post about Claude code, what's relevant is that's how things are today. How much code review is done after the AI agent stops churning is relevant to the question of code quality out the other end, but to the question at hand, "has programming changed", either has, or what I'm doing is no longer programming. The semantics are less interesting to me, the point is, when I sit down at my computer to make code happen so I can deliver software to customers, the very nature of what I do has changed.

Re: Claude Code Routines

#250

Post by wild_egg »

joshstrange wrote: post #62
andai wrote: post #25

I'm a little confused on the ToS here. From what I gathered, running `claude -p ` on cron is fine, but putting it in my Telegram bot is a ToS violation (unless I use per-token billing) because it's a 3rd party harness, right? (`claude -p` being a trivial workaround for the "no 3rd party stuff on the subscription" rule) This Routines feature notably works with the subscription, and it also has API callbacks. So if my…

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.

I hate the feeling of playing roulette with my account every time I use their tools.

Since they refuse to actually provide definitive rules or policies, I have fully moved off their models and actively encourage all the other devs I know to do the same.

Post reply on HN