Issue: Claude Code is unusable for complex engineering tasks with Feb updates

Post by randomNumber7 » Mon, Apr 06, 2026, 9:12 PM UTC

lambda wrote: post #282

ctoth wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I guess one of the things I don't understand: how you expect a stochastic model, sold as a proprietary SaaS, with a proprietary (though briefly leaked) client, is supposed to be predictable in its behavior. It seems like people are expecting LLM based coding to work in a predictable and controllable way. And, well, no, that's not how it works, and especially so when you're using a proprietary SaaS model where you can…

Post by vecter » Mon, Apr 06, 2026, 9:13 PM UTC

wonnage wrote: post #400

vecter wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you disagree with any of the data or conclusions?

Yes

Post by whateveracct » Mon, Apr 06, 2026, 9:19 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #395

whateveracct wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah so? Claude isn't an OS. It's the thing making my code. I don't want my codebase to be some bytecode adjacent thing that LLMs operate on.

So you stand upon a big pile of black boxes.

Post by enigmo » Mon, Apr 06, 2026, 9:25 PM UTC

murkt wrote: post #392

bcherny wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you submit a /bug we get a way to see the contents of the conversation. We don't see anything else in your codebase.

Was there a change in Claude Code system prompt at that time that nudges Claude into simplistic thinking? Here is a gist that tries to patch the system prompt to make Claude behave better https://gist.github.com/roman01la/483d1db15043018096ac3babf5... I haven’t personally tried it yet. I do certainly battle Claude quite a lot with “no I don’t want quick-n-easy wrong solution just because it’s two lines of code, I wan…

Post by exfalso » Mon, Apr 06, 2026, 9:32 PM UTC

JohnMakin wrote: post #297

bcherny wrote: post #209

Hey all, Boris from the Claude Code team here. I just responded on the issue, and cross-posting here for input. --- Hi, thanks for the detailed analysis. Before I keep going, I wanted to say I appreciate the depth of thinking & care that went into this. There's a lot here, I will try to break it down a bit. These are the two core things happening: > `redact-thinking-2026-02-12` This beta header hides thinking from th…

I’ve seen you/anthropic comment repeatedly over the last several months about the “thinking” in similar ways - “most users dont look at it” (how do you know this?) “our product team felt it was too visually noisy” etc etc. But every time something like this is stated, your power users (people here for the most part) state that this is dead wrong. I know you are repeating the corporate line here, but it’s bs.