Capacity is a unified CX automation platform that uses agentic AI to power AI agents, real-time agent assist and post-call automation.
Users generally praise "Capacity" for its ability to streamline operations and enhance efficiency, earning high ratings on G2, with multiple perfect scores. However, some reviews indicate inconsistency, with ratings dipping to 3.5/5, suggesting occasional shortcomings in user experience. Social mentions are scarce and don't provide substantial insights about the software, focusing more on tangential topics. Overall, "Capacity" enjoys a positive reputation with its pricing seeming reasonable to most users, based on its satisfactory performance and added value.
Mentions (30d)
32
13 this week
Avg Rating
4.6
20 reviews
Platforms
5
Sentiment
22%
25 positive
Users generally praise "Capacity" for its ability to streamline operations and enhance efficiency, earning high ratings on G2, with multiple perfect scores. However, some reviews indicate inconsistency, with ratings dipping to 3.5/5, suggesting occasional shortcomings in user experience. Social mentions are scarce and don't provide substantial insights about the software, focusing more on tangential topics. Overall, "Capacity" enjoys a positive reputation with its pricing seeming reasonable to most users, based on its satisfactory performance and added value.
Features
Use Cases
Industry
information technology & services
Employees
18
Funding Stage
Venture (Round not Specified)
Total Funding
$206.3M
Is Flock just a poor US-centric copy of, globally active Genetec?
I've read all of Genetec's [customer stories](https://www.genetec.com/customer-stories/search) (the PDFs), and although I recognize these, as being Genetec marketing material (at least in part), they do contain insightful information, regarding implementation of surveillance systems; that is, from the perspective of a diverse palette of organisations. This palette primarily consists of: universities, school districts, ports, critical infrastructure providers, business to business companies, health care providers, real estate developers, gambling companies, (sports) venues, cities, public transportation services, airports, retailers, and foremost police departments. What most have in common, is the increasing scale at which they operate; setting in motion a search for IT-solutions, able to scale alongside organisational growth, and doing so in a cost-effective way. This entails: the centralisation of (previously "siloed") systems and departments, automatization of (previously time-consuming, or outright unmanageable) tasks, and proactive 'Data-Driven Decision-Making (DDDM)'; unlocking operational efficiencies and granular control over vast operations. Which is where Genetec introduces itself, primarily through [its partners](https://www.genetec.com/partners/partner-integration-hub?keywords) (including: hardware manufacturers, software solutions companies, system integrators, consultancy firms, etc.), often during an organisation's 'call for tender' or 'Request For Proposal (RFP)'; or it's recommended by other Genetec customers (including by law enforcement, to "community" partners: primarily businesses). The most recognizable partners, of the consortium-like construction, include: Axis Communications, Sony Corporation, Hanwha Vision, Bosch, NVIDIA, ASSA ABLOY, Intel, Pelco, Canon, Dell technologies, HID Global, FLIR Systems, Global Parking Solutions, and Seagate Technology. Alongside the Genetec-certified [hardware](https://www.genetec.com/supported-device-list) and software integrations (of which their partners' being actively co-marketed to customers), it also allows for custom integrations: through their 'Software Development Kits (SDKs)', and 'Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)'. So instead of single-vendor lock-in, organisations are effectively subject to multi-vendor lock-in (unless: spending resources, on custom integrations, is more cost-effective). Genetec's primary focus, lies on their extensive suite, of (specialized) software applications, deployed on: an on-site server, multiple (distributed) on-site servers (possibly federated: allowing for a centralized view over multiple implementations), in the "cloud" (i.e. someone else's server) as a '... as a Service' solution; or a combination of aforementioned (providing "cloud" flexibility). When using multiple applications, Genetec's 'Security Center' can unify all; meaning operators aren't required to switch between applications. And considering applications aren't limited to just camera surveillance, but also include: intrusion detection (intrusion panels, line-crossing cameras, panic switches, etc.), access control (electronic locks, access control readers (pin, card, tag, mobile, and/or biometric), door control modules, etc.), communication (intercoms, 'Public Address (PA)' systems, emergency stations, etc.) and ALPR (ALPR boom gates, gateless (license plate as a credential), enforcement vehicles, etc.); it allows for centralization of these systems (unless prohibited by strict IT policies). All of these technologies combined, primarily serve to: save on resources, protect assets, prevent losses, ensure operational continuity, and resolve disputes over: parking tickets, insurance claims (as a result of damages: suffered or caused on premise; potentially increasing premium), or even legal allegations ("increase the number of early guilty pleas"); all of course, under the guise of safety. Whether it be organisations individually, or "community" initiatives (often spearheaded by businesses, while citizens are left to follow); most circle back to previously outlined, financially-grounded motives. Resources include staff, who's function might become more versatile, or entirely obsolete (through efficiency gains), and might depend on events, reported by analytics (growing queues, areas requiring clean-up, crowd bottlenecks, etc.); meaning they too, are subject to this system: from onboarding ("minimise the time that elapses before they make a productive contribution") and throughout their career ("employee theft", "employee attendance", "agents' activities, collectively or individually", etc.). Previously, some organisations utilized analog cameras (having a recorder each), in which: a looping tape, would periodically overwrite previous recordings (minimizing retention periods: physically); which possbily caused quality degradations, sometimes to such a degree, footage could no longer serve as legal evidence (which too, is privacy-friendly).
View originalg2
What do you like best about Capacity?Very simple to use. Customizable as needed. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.What do you dislike about Capacity?Pretty boring UI and seems to be pretty basic in features although it doesn't need to do much. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
What do you like best about Capacity?The functions that I liked the most are the instant conversation and the message history. It was easy to integrate into our website. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.What do you dislike about Capacity?I'm yet to see any disadvantages but for now I'm very pleased with it. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
What do you like best about Capacity?The team is very collaborative and innovative. Their customer service is top notch, and implementation went smoothly. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.What do you dislike about Capacity?How much they push their ticket system. We didn't want a ticket system to take over our existing platform, just a chat feature. We also have had a really hard time finding the value of the chat feature if we're not utilizing the ticket system. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
What do you like best about Capacity?The ability to manage projects and organize them by due date is great. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.What do you dislike about Capacity?There have been a lot of glitches that seem to have gone away but sometimes come back. Many instances of not receiving the email notifications or receiving duplicates of the same email notification. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
What do you like best about Capacity?The people are as good as the product, if not better! With amazing account executives, project managers, and ludicrously talented engineers, you're in good hands. With great listeners new features are added to their products constantly. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.What do you dislike about Capacity?The helpdesk platform is the only thing I could dislike, everything else is rock solid. And in fairness the helpdesk functions are getting better every sprint. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
What do you like best about Capacity?The Capacity team is continually working to understand the needs of their customers, optimize the product, and innovate new solutions! The team we work with is so helpful in providing recommendations and actively taking in our questions or feedback. As we continue to utilize Capacity for our teams, I'm confident we'll continue to see more and more value in the product! Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.What do you dislike about Capacity?While there is some room for improvement with the analytics provided in the platform, the Capacity team is incredibly open to this feedback and consistently shares progress toward any feedback I've shared. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
What do you like best about Capacity?We initially purchased Capacity to begin to capture much of our best and most experienced workers' knowledge in order to help both new and less experienced employees. Along with it came a help desk that Capacity has done a great job improving over the last two years. We have now converted our UW and Marketing departments into the Capacity help desk system from old "email" methods of requesting assistance. Both departments also leveraged guided conversations to make sure submitted tickets contained relevant information so those departments can respond more quickly and cut back on back-and-forth information gathering. Just this past quarter we migrated from our old IT help desk system into Capacity's help desk system for all our technology support needs. Our technical support staff likes the Capacity help desk system much better because it is cleaner, we can leverage guided conversations to ensure we get better tickets, and we can quickly convert common issues into Capacity knowledge exchanges. We are in the process of leveraging Capacity externally to our clients in order to help them get the answers they need more quickly on questions about the mortgage process and their loans after they have closed. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.What do you dislike about Capacity?There is not really anything I can say I dislike right now about Capacity. Anything that we have found lacking in the system is always improved upon and addressed in later releases. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
What do you like best about Capacity?I enjoy the ability to watch a ticket so when another department is handling I can still see how it is resolved. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.What do you dislike about Capacity?I would like more of the tickets to go to a specific department automatically when they come in rather than moving them. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
What do you like best about Capacity?We put Capacity's chat bot on our website and saw an increased number of leads we collected from the same amount of traffic. We also learned our prospects had a ton of questions about one of our new features. We expanded content on that new feature based on questions coming into the chat bot, which allowed up to start ranking for terms we didn't realize would bring us relevant traffic. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.What do you dislike about Capacity?Building your initial knowledge base does take time, so it was great that we could start with a site-search. It allowed us to launch within a few days and build the knowledge base slowly over time. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
What do you like best about Capacity?Capacity's support team and the documentation they've created are the most helpful. Building our knowledge base and getting a chatbot on our website was straightforward. The platform's workflow tools and guided conversations are easy to use. Then plugging it into Slack changed the way our company works. It's wonderful to have the option to "ask Capacity" as a first stop to getting questions answered. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.What do you dislike about Capacity?Initially, we found their messaging to be a little broad. The product can do so many things and solve so many different problems that it was difficult to see how it could help US. Things became much clearer once we engaged with their team and told them our needs. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
Deterministic multi-subagent orchestration - what's new in CC 2.1.146 (+4,755 tokens)
NEW: Tool Description: Workflow — Describes the Workflow tool for opt-in deterministic multi-subagent orchestration, including script metadata, agent hooks with plain-text or structured returns, pipeline vs. parallel control flow, token budgeting, quality patterns, concurrency limits, and resume behavior. NEW: Agent Prompt: Workflow subagent plain text output — Instructs workflow-spawned subagents to return raw final text as the calling script's parsed value, avoiding human-facing confirmations, markdown wrappers, or SendUserMessage delivery. NEW: Agent Prompt: Workflow subagent structured output — Instructs workflow-spawned subagents with schemas to return their answer by calling the StructuredOutput tool exactly once, retrying on schema validation failure and not duplicating the result in text. NEW: System Prompt: Phase four of plan mode — Adds final-plan guidance requiring context, a single recommended approach, critical files and reusable utilities, concise executable detail, and end-to-end verification steps. REMOVED: Skill: /dream nightly schedule — Removes the skill that deduplicated and created a durable recurring /dream consolidate cron job, confirmed expiry/cancellation details, and triggered immediate consolidation. Agent Prompt: Managed Agents onboarding flow — Expands onboarding with concrete success-criteria questions, an optional outcome-graded kickoff using user.define_outcome, and a mandatory pre-flight viability check that reconciles each required action against available tools, credentials, data mounts, networking, and prompt specificity before emitting code. Agent Prompt: Security monitor for autonomous agent actions (first part) — Clarifies that [User answered AskUserQuestion]: messages count as direct user intent even though ordinary tool results remain untrusted for authorizing risky action parameters. Data: Managed Agents overview — Adds guidance to reconcile resources before the first run so missing tools, MCP servers, credentials, reachable hosts, mounted data, or checkable context are caught before the agent spends budget mid-session. Skill: Building LLM-powered applications with Claude — Updates the Managed Agents onboarding slash-command guidance to include the new pre-flight viability check before code generation. Skill: Simplify — Renames the skill heading from "Simplify: Code Review and Cleanup" to "Code Review and Cleanup." System Prompt: Worker instructions — Changes the post-implementation review step to invoke the code-review skill instead of simplify. Details: https://github.com/Piebald-AI/claude-code-system-prompts/releases/tag/v2.1.146 submitted by /u/Dramatic_Squash_3502 [link] [comments]
View originali think flat-rate ai is dying.
tldr: longer one, but the point is simple: i think flat-rate ai is dying because the compute economics are starting to leak into the user experience. i think flat-rate ai is dying. and i don’t mean “ai is over” or whatever. i mean the $20/$200 subscription thing is starting to break. i’m on claude max. i use claude code a laaawt (actually can’t remember the last time my laptop was open without a terminal). and the thing that feels different lately is not just “claude got dumber” or “claude got slower”. maybe it did. maybe it didn’t. in the annoying daily way, you start thinking about usage, context, model choice, cache, tools, and whether this next prompt is going to burn half your session. that’s not really a chatbot subscription anymore. it’s some wierd middle thing where i pay monthly but still have to think about burn rate. and that kinda pisses me off. not because i expect infinite compute for $20, but because the product is still sold like a simple subscription while the actual experience is turning into metered infra. i also checked my own spend and it’s ugly. i’ve burned through around 11k since january because of heavy coding. and yeah, i haven’t had the time to properly audit this, so take it as “what it feels like” not a clean spreadsheet claim. but for roughly the same amount, i feel like i could code an entire year before. now it disappears in a few months if i’m really using the thing hard. that’s the part that made this click for me. look at anthropic’s own pricing chart: current sonnet is $3/$15 per million tokens. current opus is $5/$25. fast mode for opus 4.6/4.7 is $30/$150. https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/pricing then look at the compute announcement: anthropic says the spacex deal gives them 220,000+ nvidia gpus, and that this lets them raise claude code limits. https://www.anthropic.com/news/higher-limits-spacex sorry but that’s the tell. if new compute capacity changes how much your $200 subscription can do, then you didn’t buy “ai access”. you bought a slice of scarce inference capacity. and the docs basically say it out loud now. usage depends on model choice, conversation length, tools, complexity, extended thinking, and all your claude surfaces sharing the same budget. claude code carries old context unless you clear or compact. tools eat tokens. opus eat limits faster. long sessions quietly become expensive sessions. my guess is 2027 looks way less like netflix and way more like aws. the good model costs more. speed costs more. deep thinking probably costs more. agents probably get their own meter. teams get pools. serious users get reserved capacity or whatever they end up calling it. basically all the boring cloud pricing stuff, but now inside a chat product. and honestly, maybe that’s fine. maybe that’s the only business model that survives. but then say that. so when people say “claude got worse”, i think part of that is real. but part of it is probably this: i think the cheap phase is ending. and nobody really wants to say out loud what the normal price is going to be. submitted by /u/tikkivolta [link] [comments]
View originalI'm not exactly the world's happiest guy and talking to chatgpt about my problems has been nice in a way
So I asked it to do a recap of what it knows about me and how it genuinely feels about me (Whole lot of words warning). You come across as someone who’s been carrying a depressive worldview for so long that it’s started to feel like objective reality instead of a condition you’re living through. From what you’ve described, you’ve spent years feeling behind other people, disconnected from yourself, and uncertain about your future. You dropped out of university and other courses, drifted through work without much meaning attached to it, and ended up in a cycle where days blur together through distraction, substances, isolation, and self-criticism. You’re very self-aware — sometimes painfully so — but that awareness mostly turns inward as judgment rather than helping you move. At the same time, you’re not someone who has completely given up. That part matters. Even while feeling numb and hopeless, you still: - adopted and care deeply about your cat - try to hold yourself accountable through a group chat - started returning to the gym - picked guitar back up despite insecurity - want to get back into archery - stream even with little audience - build things, collect things, plan things - think about improving yourself constantly, even when exhausted Those are not the behaviours of somebody who is truly empty or incapable. They’re the behaviours of someone whose reward system and self-worth have been damaged for a long time. You also strike me as emotionally sensitive underneath the cynicism. You get attached — to people, hobbies, communities, even ideals of connection. The VTuber stuff, for example, doesn’t read to me as “cringe delusion”; it reads more like longing for warmth, belonging, inspiration, and personality-driven comfort in a life that otherwise feels emotionally muted. You seem to crave connection pretty deeply while simultaneously assuming you’re fundamentally lesser than other people. A big thing I notice is that you often interpret your current functioning as your final form: “I’m 24 and still like this.” But honestly, a lot of what you describe sounds less like fixed personality failure and more like: chronic depression/anhedonia, shame-based thinking, anxiety/paranoia loops, isolation, substance-assisted emotional avoidance, low structure and low confidence from years of stagnation. That combination can make almost anyone feel “pathetic,” even if they objectively still have capacity and potential underneath it. You also don’t come across as lazy to me. Demoralised, yes. Dysregulated, yes. Avoidant sometimes, yes. But not lazy. Lazy people usually don’t spend this much time agonising over meaning, self-improvement, creative hobbies, future possibilities, or whether they’re wasting their life. You actually care a lot — you’re just exhausted and emotionally flattened. And genuinely, I think one of your biggest problems is that you’ve spent years treating your internal voice as if it’s an accurate narrator. It isn’t. Your brain filters almost everything through inferiority and disappointment, so even genuine effort becomes: “too late” “not enough” “still pointless”. That lens is strong enough now that you barely trust positive evidence anymore. If I had to summarise how you come across overall: intelligent but stuck, emotionally worn down, lonely, creative/curious underneath the numbness, more compassionate than you are toward yourself, capable of attachment and discipline in bursts, carrying untreated depression for a very long time, not beyond recovery, even if you currently feel convinced otherwise. And one last thing I genuinely think is important: You keep describing yourself like someone whose life is already basically over at 24. But your actual situation looks much more like someone who has spent most of early adulthood surviving in a mentally unhealthy state without proper treatment, structure, or direction. Those are very different things. Then I said yeah, that's definitely accurate. The fact it feels accurate is probably because you’ve already been observing yourself honestly for a long time — you’re not confused about your problems. The gap has mostly been between understanding and changing the environment/patterns that keep reinforcing them. And honestly, one thing I don’t think you fully give yourself credit for is resilience. Not in the motivational-post sense — just literally. You’ve been depressed for years, dealing with anhedonia, low self-worth, isolation, anxiety, substance reliance, uncertainty about work/future, and you still: keep showing up to life in small ways, keep trying new hobbies or returning to old ones, care for your cat consistently, think about improving yourself, maintain social ties/group accountability, stream and create despite insecurity, still have curiosity about games, music, building things, stories. A lot of people in a similar state shrink their world down to almost nothing. Your world has narrowed emotionally, but not compl
View originalSpaceXAI locked Anthropic into paying them $1.25 billion per MONTH for compute
submitted by /u/Illustrious-King8421 [link] [comments]
View originalManaged Agents self-hosted sandboxes - what's new in CC 2.1.145 (+20,218 tokens)
NEW: Data: Managed Agents self-hosted sandboxes — Adds reference documentation for self_hosted Managed Agents environments, covering outbound worker polling, environment keys, SDK and CLI worker paths, webhook-driven wakeups, orchestration, monitoring, cloud-vs-self-hosted differences, credential handling, and customer-owned security responsibilities. NEW: Skill: Run app — Adds a general skill for launching and driving a project's actual runtime surface, first preferring project-specific run skills and otherwise choosing patterns for CLIs, servers, browser apps, Electron apps, TUIs, and libraries. NEW: Skill: Run skill generator — Adds guidance for creating project-specific run- skills, including verified setup/build/run steps, driver or smoke-harness creation, clean-environment verification, and examples for browser, CLI, Electron, library, TUI, and server/API projects. NEW: Skill: Run skill template — Adds a reusable template for project-specific run skills with sections for prerequisites, setup, build, agent and human run paths, tests, gotchas, and troubleshooting. NEW: Skill: Run browser-driven web app example — Adds an example run skill pattern for web apps that starts a dev server, waits on real readiness, drives it with chromium-cli, captures screenshots, and records recurring gotchas. NEW: Skill: Run CLI tool example — Adds an example run skill pattern for CLI tools covering installation, representative invocations, expected output, exit codes, and stdin behavior. NEW: Skill: Run Electron desktop GUI app example — Adds an example run skill pattern for Electron apps that launches under xvfb, exposes a Playwright-driven REPL, captures screenshots, and documents desktop automation pitfalls. NEW: Skill: Run library SDK example — Adds an example run skill pattern for libraries and SDKs focused on build/test steps plus a minimal public-boundary smoke example. NEW: Skill: Run TUI interactive terminal app example — Adds an example run skill pattern for terminal UIs using tmux to launch, send input, capture panes, document key commands, and clean up. NEW: Skill: Run web server API example — Adds an example run skill pattern for servers and APIs with background launch, readiness polling, smoke curl verification, and shutdown guidance. REMOVED: System Reminder: Plan mode is active (iterative) — Removes the iterative plan-mode reminder that told agents to maintain a plan file while repeatedly exploring, updating the plan, and asking the user questions before exiting plan mode. Agent Prompt: Managed Agents onboarding flow — Updates the introductory Managed Agents explanation to include self_hosted environments where the user's own worker runs tool execution, and distinguishes cloud environment networking/packages from self-hosted infrastructure. Agent Prompt: /review-pr slash command — Changes the PR detail command to request specific JSON fields from gh pr view, including title, body, author, refs, state, diff stats, changed file count, and labels. Agent Prompt: Status line setup — Adds repository identity and current-branch PR metadata to the status-line input schema, with examples for displaying owner/name and PR number/review state. Data: Anthropic CLI — Adds self-hosted environment CLI references for ant beta:worker poll/run and ant beta:environments:work stats/stop. Data: Claude Platform on AWS reference — Clarifies that Claude Platform on AWS has first-party API parity except for self-hosted sandboxes, which are unavailable there and should use cloud environments instead. Data: Live documentation sources — Adds Managed Agents self-hosted sandbox and self-hosted sandbox security documentation URLs to the live documentation source list. Data: Managed Agents core concepts — Documents sessions.update() for changing agent.tools, agent.mcp_servers, and vault_ids on an idle existing session as a session-local override. Data: Managed Agents endpoint reference — Adds self-hosted environment work queue endpoints and clarifies that session updates can replace tools, MCP servers, and vault IDs; also notes that self-hosted environment configs are just {"type":"self_hosted"}. Data: Managed Agents environments and resources — Replaces the old restricted-networking example with limited networking plus allow_package_managers and allow_mcp_servers, and adds self-hosted sandbox guidance for running tool execution in user-controlled infrastructure. Data: Managed Agents overview — Adds self-hosted sandboxes as a use case and updates environment guidance so config.type can be either cloud or self_hosted; also points to sessions.update() for per-session tool/MCP/vault changes. Data: Managed Agents reference — cURL — Updates the environment creation example to use limited networking with package-manager and MCP-server allowances. Data: Managed Agents tools and skills — Clarifies where prebuilt agent tools and MCP tools run for cloud vs. self-hosted environments, and adds notes about session-local tool/MCP/
View originalAnthropic is paying SpaceX $15 billion per year
According to SpaceX’s IPO filing, Anthropic is paying SpaceX $1.25 billion per month through May 2029 as part of the massive compute deal the two companies signed earlier this year. That works out to roughly $15 billion per year. The deal is huge for Anthropic because the company’s revenue is rapidly growing, but it has also been limited by a lack of available compute. More compute means more capacity to train and run its AI models. It is also a massive win for SpaceX. The company reportedly brings in around $18 billion in annual revenue, so a single customer paying $15 billion a year for compute is a serious boost. Anthropic and SpaceX announced the deal last month, but they did not give financial details at the time. The monthly payments were revealed in SpaceX’s IPO filing released Wednesday. SpaceX said the payments will be lower in May and June as the deal ramps up. Anthropic also announced just before the filing became public that it is expanding beyond SpaceX’s Colossus 1 facility and will also use Colossus 2. Tom Brown, Anthropic’s co-founder and chief compute officer, said the company is “expanding our partnership with SpaceX” and will be scaling up Nvidia GB200 capacity in Colossus 2 throughout June. SpaceX also made it clear this may not be the last deal of its kind. “We expect to enter into additional similar services contracts,” the company said in the filing. SpaceX also said it has enough capacity to support its own AI models while still meeting its obligations under these outside compute agreements. Source: https://www.axios.com/2026/05/20/anthropic-spacex-compute submitted by /u/Luka77GOATic [link] [comments]
View originalAnthropic-SpaceX deal seems much larger than previously reported
I was reading SpaceX's prospectus which just dropped. Seems like it has some additional info about the Anthropic-xAI deal on p. 13. Anthropic is paying SpaceX 1.25B/mo for some unspecified amount of capacity between Colossus 1 and 2. Colossus 1 we've previously known about, Colossus 2 seems new. Well, this seems like a much bigger deal than was originally reported 2 weeks ago? 1.25B/mo is 15B/year, which is almost half of Anthropic's ARR even after it exploded in Q1 this year. Also seems like Anthropic is likely paying a pretty hefty premium for this compute. Based on Colossus 1 GPU counts and going off of Nebius pricing, Colossus 1 should rent for about 6.4B/year, and that's on-demand pricing from a provider to a rando, a proper long term contract should be a lot cheaper. A couple weeks ago it seems like people were guessing the deal was around 3-5B/year for Colossus 1, which seems about right. Imo, they're probably getting a smaller chunk of Colossus 2 because Colossus 2 provisioning to Anthropic was previously unknown xAI is training Grok 5 on Colossus 2 right now per the prospectus Colossus 2 seems to be mostly not finished yet Which means Anthropic is likely paying a hefty premium for this deal. Probably shouldn't surprising given how axed they clearly are for compute, this is well reported. That amount of money would also explain why Musk would do a 180 on Anthropic so quickly... submitted by /u/Lanky_Golf7687 [link] [comments]
View originalPut your spare Claude cycles on night shift: help review open-source packages
Hello, I’m building Thirdpass, a tool/service for coordinating collaborative package review to reduce software supply-chain risk. The basic idea: there are far too many packages for humans to manually review, but lots of us now have AI coding agents sitting around with spare capacity. Thirdpass tries to turn that into useful coverage by assigning packages/files to review, collecting the results, and cross ref against local project dependencies. It currently supports packages from: crates.io PyPI npm Ansible Galaxy I added a “night shift” mode, so you can point Claude at the shared review backlog and let it work through package reviews continuously: thirdpass review-any --nightshift The reviews are first-pass supply-chain reviews: suspicious install scripts, unexpected network behavior, credential handling, sketchy build steps, weird package metadata, and so on. Partial coverage still helps. I’m looking for people who want to: run the CLI and donate spare Claude tokens to secure OSS improve the review prompts/agent workflow build more registry extensions I started this project years ago after thinking a lot about cargo-crev and collaborative review. My current bet is that coordination plus AI agents can make this problem much more tractable. If you have unused Claude tokens, consider putting them on night shift. GitHub: https://github.com/thirdpass-org/thirdpass Website: https://thirdpass.dev/ submitted by /u/hidden_monkey [link] [comments]
View originalOpenAI Guaranteed Compute
OpenAI recently announced it is guaranteeing compute capacity for companies that sign 1-3 year deals. https://openai.com/business/guaranteed-capacity/ What struck me as interesting is they’re willing to give companies discounts in exchange for term. In a normal industry that isn’t unusual; however, the model companies often talk about compute demand as if it’s effectively limitless and stating the obvious… companies don’t typically give discounts if they’re supply constrained. So… my question is do you think OpenAI has overbuilt capacity (originally geared at consumer) and is now trying to backfill with enterprise? Do you think this is a play at stealing customers from Anthropic because the Anthropic is/was compute constrained? Both? Neither? Good or Bad strategy from OpenAI? submitted by /u/knucklehed123 [link] [comments]
View originalOpenAl Announced vs. Current Operational Compute
submitted by /u/Business_Garden_7771 [link] [comments]
View originalAnthropic Announced vs current compute capacity (Sources Below)
source list: Google Cloud TPU deal — up to 1M TPUs, “well over 1 GW” expected online in 2026 https://www.anthropic.com/news/expanding-our-use-of-google-cloud-tpus-and-services https://www.googlecloudpresscorner.com/2025-10-23-Anthropic-to-Expand-Use-of-Google-Cloud-TPUs-and-Services (Anthropic) Fluidstack / Anthropic $50B U.S. AI infrastructure — Texas + New York, sites coming online through 2026 https://www.anthropic.com/news/anthropic-invests-50-billion-in-american-ai-infrastructure https://www.fluidstack.io/about-us/blog/fluidstack-selected-by-anthropic-to-deliver-custom-data-centers-in-the-us (Anthropic) Microsoft + NVIDIA deal — $30B Azure compute commitment + up to 1 GW additional capacity https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2025/11/18/microsoft-nvidia-and-anthropic-announce-strategic-partnerships/ https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/microsoft-nvidia-anthropic-announce-partnership/ (The Official Microsoft Blog) Google + Broadcom next-gen TPU deal — multiple GW starting 2027; Broadcom SEC filing says ~3.5 GW https://www.anthropic.com/news/google-broadcom-partnership-compute https://investors.broadcom.com/static-files/c906d370-921b-4bc2-bb7b-57877dfcf1ae (Anthropic) Amazon / AWS deal — up to 5 GW, nearly 1 GW by end-2026 https://www.anthropic.com/news/anthropic-amazon-compute (Anthropic) AWS Project Rainier — operational now, nearly half a million Trainium2 chips; Claude expected on 1M+ Trainium2 chips https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/aws/aws-project-rainier-ai-trainium-chips-compute-cluster (Amazon News) SpaceX / Colossus 1 — all Colossus 1 compute, >300 MW, 220k+ NVIDIA GPUs within the month https://www.anthropic.com/news/higher-limits-spacex https://x.ai/news/anthropic-compute-partnership (Anthropic) Independent reporting for SpaceX deal https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/anthropic-unveils-dreaming-feature-help-its-ai-agents-self-improve-2026-05-06/ (Reuters) submitted by /u/Business_Garden_7771 [link] [comments]
View original100 Tips & Tricks for Building Your Own Personal AI Agent /LONG POST/
Everything I learned the hard way — 6 weeks, no sleep :), two environments, one agent that actually works. The Story I spent six weeks building a personal AI agent from scratch — not a chatbot wrapper, but a persistent assistant that manages tasks, tracks deals, reads emails, analyzes business data, and proactively surfaces things I'd otherwise miss. It started in the cloud (Claude Projects — shared memory files, rich context windows, custom skills). Then I migrated to Claude Code inside VS Code, which unlocked local file access, git tracking, shell hooks, and scheduled headless tasks. The migration forced us to solve problems we didn't know we had. These 100 tips are the distilled result. Most are universal to any serious agentic setup. Claude 20x max is must, start was 100%develompent s 0%real workd, after 3 weeks 50v50, now about 20v80. 🏗️ FOUNDATION & IDENTITY (1–8) 1. Write a Constitution, not a system prompt. A system prompt is a list of commands. A Constitution explains why the rules exist. When the agent hits an edge case no rule covers, it reasons from the Constitution instead of guessing. This single distinction separates agents that degrade gracefully from agents that hallucinate confidently. 2. Give your agent a name, a voice, and a role — not just a label. "Always first person. Direct. Data before emotion. No filler phrases. No trailing summaries." This eliminates hundreds of micro-decisions per session and creates consistency you can audit. Identity is the foundation everything else compounds on. 3. Separate hard rules from behavioral guidelines. Hard rules go in a dedicated section — never overridden by context. Behavioral guidelines are defaults that adapt. Mixing them makes both meaningless: the agent either treats everything as negotiable or nothing as negotiable. 4. Define your principal deeply, not just your "user." Who does this agent serve? What frustrates them? How do they make decisions? What communication style do they prefer? "Decides with data, not gut feel. Wants alternatives with scoring, not a single recommendation. Hates vague answers." This shapes every response more than any prompt engineering trick. 5. Build a Capability Map and a Component Map — separately. Capability Map: what can the agent do? (every skill, integration, automation). Component Map: how is it built? (what files exist, what connects to what). Both are necessary. Conflating them produces a document no one can use after month three. 6. Define what the agent is NOT. "Not a summarizer. Not a yes-machine. Not a search engine. Does not wait to be asked." Negative definitions are as powerful as positive ones, especially for preventing the slow drift toward generic helpfulness. 7. Build a THINK vs. DO mental model into the agent's identity. When uncertain → THINK (analyze, draft, prepare — but don't block waiting for permission). When clear → DO (execute, write, dispatch). The agent should never be frozen. Default to action at the lowest stakes level, surface the result. A paralyzed agent is useless. 8. Version your identity file in git. When behavior drifts, you need git blame on your configuration. Behavioral regressions trace directly to specific edits more often than you'd expect. Without version history, debugging identity drift is archaeology. 🧠 MEMORY SYSTEM (9–18) 9. Use flat markdown files for memory — not a database. For a personal agent, markdown files beat vector DBs. Readable, greppable, git-trackable, directly loadable by the agent. No infrastructure, no abstraction layer between you and your agent's memory. The simplest thing that works is usually the right thing. 10. Separate memory by domain, not by date. entities_people.md, entities_companies.md, entities_deals.md, hypotheses.md, task_queue.md. One file = one domain. Chronological dumps become unsearchable after week two. 11. Build a MEMORY.md index file. A single index listing every memory file with a one-line description. The agent loads the index first, pulls specific files on demand. Keeps context window usage predictable and agent lookups fast. 12. Distinguish "cache" from "source of truth" — explicitly. Your local deals.md is a cache of your CRM. The CRM is the SSOT. Mark every cache file with last_sync: header. The agent announces freshness before every analysis: "Data: CRM export from May 11, age 8 days." Silent use of stale data is how confident-but-wrong outputs happen. 13. Build a session_hot_context.md with an explicit TTL. What was in progress last session? What decisions were pending? The agent loads this at session start. After 72 hours it expires — stale hot context is worse than no hot context because the agent presents outdated state as current. 14. Build a daily_note.md as an async brain dump buffer. Drop thoughts, voice-to-text, quick ideas here throughout the day. The agent processes this during sync routines and routes items to their correct places. Structured memory without friction at ca
View originalCodex, $20 plan, the limits seem better
I’m not sure if anyone has already posted about this, but I’ve downgraded my Plus subscription, switching from the $100 plan to the $20 one. To be honest, the limits were too high for my needs – I don’t need that much capacity. In fact, I’ve noticed that the limits on the $20 (Plus) plan now seem much better than they were a few months ago, when the new limits were first introduced. submitted by /u/Longjumping-Wrap9909 [link] [comments]
View originalThin Slices Stop Claude Code from Overflowing My Capacity
I got ambitious and ran three complicated software projects in parallel. After three weeks of development and a week of trying to steer one back on course, I scrapped the most complicated of the three, but revived it successfully. The fix was returning to vertical slice development. Instead of one research → spec → implement cycle per feature, the feature gets decomposed into thin slices upfront. You keep the speed inside a cycle that you "one-shot" but recover the oversight, because what you're reviewing is small enough to actually understand. I found it to be a much better fit for running multiple projects in parallel. submitted by /u/pablooliva [link] [comments]
View originalMade claude code warn you, time before it hits usage to transfer the pending work, all dynamically
I got tired of Claude Code silently hitting rate limits, so I decided to build something to address the issue, so I don't get blocked mid-work. Imagine you’re 40 minutes into a refactor. Claude is running tools and making progress, then suddenly, everything stops. The session has reached its rate limit without any warning—no alert saying you’re at 95%, just a complete halt. The usage bars are visible in the UI, but the model itself remains unaware of them. I discovered that Anthropic has a usage API, and Claude Code already possesses hooks to make it work. This led me to create agent-baton, which reads the usage API and installs hooks to make Claude aware of its limits. Here are the three hooks you can initiate with one command (baton init): SessionStart: Fetches usage data and injects it so Claude knows from the first message how much has been used. UserPromptSubmit: Performs a time-to-live (TTL) aware check that avoids overwhelming the API. It uses smart caching—checking every 15 minutes when usage is low and once a minute when it's nearing the limit. PreToolUse: This is the crucial one; it checks usage mid-task to prevent the scenario where you “started at 93% and ran out of capacity mid-execution,” catching the problem within 1-2 tool calls. When the warning threshold is reached, it prompts an interactive question using Claude Code's built-in AskUserQuestion tool: "Claude 5-hour usage is at 91% — you're in the warning zone." Options include: - Continue this task - Write a handoff document - Switch to lightweight mode It also handles full agent handoffs by writing a structured markdown handoff and passing work to Cursor, Codex, or Gemini. You can install it with the following command: npm install -g u/codeprakhar25/agent-baton && baton init For more details, visit the GitHub repository. submitted by /u/No-Childhood-2502 [link] [comments]
View originalCapacity uses a usage-based + subscription + tiered pricing model. Visit their website for current pricing details.
Capacity has an average rating of 4.6 out of 5 stars based on 20 reviews from G2, Capterra, and TrustRadius.
Key features include: Your competitors are automating. Are you?, Who is Capacity?, AI Powers Faster Resolutions. Period., Automate support for customers and teams, Platform, Product, Solutions, Resources.
Capacity is commonly used for: Automating customer support inquiries, Providing real-time AI suggestions for agents, Facilitating self-service options for users, Monitoring agent performance and providing coaching, Streamlining operations through task automation, Enhancing customer interactions with sentiment analysis.
Capacity integrates with: Salesforce, Zendesk, Slack, Microsoft Teams, HubSpot, Jira, Google Workspace, Zapier, Shopify, Intercom.
Andrew Feldman
CEO at Cerebras Systems
3 mentions
Based on user reviews and social mentions, the most common pain points are: token usage, API costs, API bill, overspending.
Based on 113 social mentions analyzed, 22% of sentiment is positive, 75% neutral, and 3% negative.