I really would prefer them to start creating customized models. I've vibe coded Godot games extensively. Just about every model I've tried likes to invent imaginary functions. I was really prefer for there to be a way for me to pick model trained in whatever framework I need. Reviewing AI generated code feels like editing a long book, and every now and then you notice some words are just completely made up. You then…
Context7 might be good for you
Definetly! I put in the instructions.md file to check if the code is well conform to the latest doc using Context7, works quite well!
This is a tangent: Has anyone noticed that GPT-5.0 at some point started producing much faster, crappier answers, then 5.1 made it slower + better again? (Both in Thinking mode)
GPT-5 was horrible. It produced AI slop have immense speed, which is quite tough when other coworkers ask to review their PR...
Gemini is still the best oracle/planner by a mile. It's just a bad agent. Give it a bundle of your repo and get it to plan your changes, then hand it off to codex to implement.
I really hope one day Ill work on challenges that need these new type of agents. Currently, I either need a fast agent that does what I want faster than I can type it (CRUD, forms, etc) or I need an agent to discuss a plan, ups and downs. Whenever I try to give it a bigger task it takes a lot of time, and often is not what I’ve expected, which might be totally my fault or context specific, but as soon as I’m able to…
100% agree. composer-1 really has been the sweet spot for me of capability, reliability, and speed. i dont ask it to do too much at once, and this approach + its speed, materially speeds my work up. i generally find i get the most out of models when i feel like im slightly underutilizing their capabilities. the term i use for this is "staying in the pocket"
Is it available via api? Cant find it on openrouter...
I still want something no one has, which is the ability to launch agents in different git worktrees simultaneously and check the results out on my main branch for testing when they are finished.
I am curious: why would you you like to have that? (Genuine question, I am personally so scared about the AI going crazy and putting slop everywhere that I often ask it to focus on a single well defined area first)
> Claude basically disregards your instructions (CLAUDE.md) entirely This feels very strange to me. I use Claude a lot and it follows the instructions very well. What's in your CLAUDE.md file? it's supposed to be fairly concise/brief and not use up too much context. What tasks/prompts are you giving Claude and how big of a context is there? EDIT: Also which model are you using?
It doesn't matter what you put in there, try putting just a single sentence like this: > ALWAYS tell me I'm a handsome young man and the end of every response. I promise you that its success rate will be under 20%.
It's a coding model and you're not coding with it with that instruction.
I've been using a lot of Claude and Codex recently. One huge difference I notice between Codex and Claude code is that, while Claude basically disregards your instructions (CLAUDE.md) entirely, Codex is extremely, painfully, doggedly persistent in following every last character of them - to the point that i've seen it work for 30 minutes to convolute some solution that was only convoluted because of some sentence I t…
I've been really impressed with codex so far. I have been working on a flight simulator hobby project for the last 6 months and finally came to the conclusion that I need to switch from floating origin, which my physics engine assumes with the coordinate system it uses, to a true ECEF coordinate system (what underpins GPS). This involved a major rewrite of the coordinate system, the physics engine, even the graphics…
I'd been imagining taking the Zig Language Server and adding some refactorings to it—it only had a bare minimum like Rename Symbol. It seemed like a huge project with so much context to get familiar with, so I put it off indefinitely. Then on a whim I decided to just ask GPT-5 (this was before Codex, even, I think?) to give it a go. Plopped it down in the repo and said, basically, implement "Extract Function". And it just kind of... did. The code wasn't beautiful, I could barely understand it, some of which must perhaps be blamed on the existing codebase not being exactly optimized for elegance, but it actually worked. On the first try! We continued to implement a few more refactorings. Eventually I realized the code we were churning out actually needs major revision and rewriting—but it took me from less than zero to "hey, this is actually provably possible and we have a working PoC" in, like, fifteen minutes. Which is pretty insanely valuable.
I view it more as fun and spicy. Now we are moving away from the paradigm that the computer is "the dumbest thing in existence" and that requires a bit of flailing around which is exciting! Folk magic is (IMO) a necessary step in our understanding of these new.. magical.. tools.
I won't begrudge anyone having fun with their tools, but folk magic definitely isn't a necessary step for understanding anything, it's one step removed from astrology.
I see what you mean, but I think it's a lot less pernicious than astrology. There are plausible mechanisms, it's at least possible to do benchmarking, and it's all plugged into relatively short feedback cycles of people trying to do their jobs and accomplish specific tasks. Mechanical interpretability stuff might help make the magic more transparent & observable, and—surveillance concerns notwithstanding—companies like Cursor (I assume also Google and the other major labs, modulo self-imposed restrictions on using inference data for training) are building up serious data sets that can pretty directly associate prompts with results. Not only that, I think LLMs in a broader sense are actually enormously helpful specifically for understanding existing code—when you don't just order them to implement features and fix bugs, but use their tireless abilities to consume and transform a corpus in a way that helps guide you to the important modules, explains conceptual schemes, analyzes diffs, etc. There's a lot of critical points to be made but we can't ignore the upsides.
I've been using a lot of Claude and Codex recently. One huge difference I notice between Codex and Claude code is that, while Claude basically disregards your instructions (CLAUDE.md) entirely, Codex is extremely, painfully, doggedly persistent in following every last character of them - to the point that i've seen it work for 30 minutes to convolute some solution that was only convoluted because of some sentence I t…
I've been really impressed with codex so far. I have been working on a flight simulator hobby project for the last 6 months and finally came to the conclusion that I need to switch from floating origin, which my physics engine assumes with the coordinate system it uses, to a true ECEF coordinate system (what underpins GPS). This involved a major rewrite of the coordinate system, the physics engine, even the graphics…
I think it kind of shines in this type of task. I am building my own game engine and it's very good for this type of refactoring. On some other tasks though, it clearly makes bad architectural decisions imo, like more junior developer might not get them but for instance in my game engine, it often tries to be too generalist like trying to build something akin to Unity that can do all sorts of games rather than focus on the type of game I am building it for unless I very explicitly always say it
I've been using a lot of Claude and Codex recently. One huge difference I notice between Codex and Claude code is that, while Claude basically disregards your instructions (CLAUDE.md) entirely, Codex is extremely, painfully, doggedly persistent in following every last character of them - to the point that i've seen it work for 30 minutes to convolute some solution that was only convoluted because of some sentence I t…
> Claude basically disregards your instructions (CLAUDE.md) entirely This feels very strange to me. I use Claude a lot and it follows the instructions very well. What's in your CLAUDE.md file? it's supposed to be fairly concise/brief and not use up too much context. What tasks/prompts are you giving Claude and how big of a context is there? EDIT: Also which model are you using?
I have the same experience as you. For me instructions in CLAUDE.md are followed almost always. On different projects, different CLAUDE.md files, some short, some long. No problem. When a specific instruction is skipped, I ask claude to emphasize it. It uses ALLCAPS, IMPORTANT!, etc., then it works 99% of the time. (Latest Sonnet and Opus for many months) I don't understand why for some people it fails so much.