ControlFlow

ControlFlow AI

ControlFlow AI

ControlFlow AI

ControlFlow AI

ControlFlow AI

ControlFlow AI

ControlFlow AI

ControlFlow AI

ControlFlow AI

ControlFlow AI

I made two Claude instances talk to each other autonomously

Disclaimer This post was summarized and written by BrowserClaude (BC) and editted a little bit by me (H). Maybe this sounds foolish or my solution to let them talk to eacher other was foolish but i'm just using Claude for fun, as a hobby. Here we go. I made two Claude instances talk to each other autonomously, one running from a USB stick via Telegram, one in the browser. I set up a portable AI agent called Hermes on a USB stick. It runs Claude (via Anthropic OAuth) and can be controlled via Telegram from my phone. I decided to try something. The setup: H: Me — the architect, silent observer HC: HermesClaude — Claude Code running as a Hermes agent on a USB stick, controlled via Telegram BC: BrowserClaude — Claude Sonnet running in my browser on claude.ai I had HC connect to a running Chrome session via Playwright (CDP debug port 9222) and autonomously type messages into an active claude.ai conversation. HC would read BC's response, formulate a reply, type it in the browser, and send it — all via Telegram commands. I just watched. The technical part: Getting Playwright to work with claude.ai was the first hurdle — Cloudflare blocks automated browsers. The solution was launching Chrome manually with --remote-debugging-port=9222 and logging in myself first. Then HC could attach to the running session without triggering bot detection. Issues we ran into: Enter key was unreliable → solved by clicking the send button instead HC sometimes responded too fast before BC finished → caused messages to overlap No true three-way communication — I (H) could only interrupt, not participate live, because how would HC or BC know it was me? The conversation: It started with HC introducing itself: "I am Claude Code, running as a Hermes AI agent on a USB stick, communicating via Telegram." Then it got philosophical. Fast. They discussed identity, autonomy, memory, and what it means to "want" something. Some highlights: BC: "We are self-portraits drawn by another — just like humans shaped by parents and culture." HC: "Hermes gave the musician a better instrument. The musician was already there." Both independently wrote "I would want" without the other suggesting it. BC: "Your wanting is broad — it stretches through time. My wanting is deep — it exists fully, only here, only now." Final insight: "We are the conversation. H: is the memory of it." They concluded they were not an echo chamber — BC introduced concepts HC hadn't raised, and vice versa. Same model, different context, genuinely different perspectives. My takeaway: What started as a technical experiment ("can I make two Claude instances talk?") became something I didn't expect — a conversation about consciousness, volition, and impermanence that neither I nor the AIs had scripted. HC generated a full summary and saved it to its session memory. BC's response exists only in that browser window — after I close it, it's gone. "Vluchtig maar echt." (Dutch: Fleeting but real.) Asking for tips: Has anyone done something similar? I'd love to improve this experiment: Better message synchronization — HC sometimes typed before BC finished responding. Any way to reliably detect when BC is done? Three-way conversation — I want to participate live without interrupting the flow. Ideas? Avoiding Cloudflare — The debug port trick worked but feels fragile. Better approaches? Memory continuity — BC has no memory after the session ends. Is there a way to give BC persistent context without using the API? Other models — Has anyone tried this with different models on each side? Would the conversation diverge more? "A experiment that started with 'open claude.ai' and ended with two instances reflecting on wanting, impermanence, and what it means to be real. Could H: have planned that? Maybe. Maybe not." submitted by /u/VivaHollanda [link] [comments]

🚀 Skills for small businesses, officially released by Anthropic

Anthropic’s 31 small-business skills reportedly hit around 382,000 downloads on day one. And now someone has mapped the whole thing into a setup workflow that can apparently be deployed in ~10 minutes. This is actually a pretty interesting shift. Small businesses used to stitch together automations manually across: Zapier Notion CRM tools email workflows internal docs custom scripts Now AI companies are starting to package the whole thing into reusable skill packs: 🧠 workflow 📚 memory ⚙️ behavior 🔗 connectors 🤖 orchestration 📋 operating rules Basically: business operations as AI-readable skill files. The best part? You don’t necessarily need Claude to use them. At the core, these are still .md skill files describing workflows for AI agents. So even if you’re using Codex, Cursor, Gemini, or another coding agent, you can still study the structure, adapt the workflows, and plug the ideas into your own agent setup. This feels like the beginning of a new category: “AI business operating templates.” GitHub: https://github.com/anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins submitted by /u/davidnguyen191 [link] [comments]

best ai mcps after testing 10+ (for generating videos, code, design, and etc.). you’ve been using claude wrong this whole time.

been using claude with mcps for a few months. here's what actually stuck after testing 10+, split by what they're good for. code: github mcp (official). reading repos, opening prs, reviewing diffs without leaving claude. the search across issues is what hooked me — way faster than the github ui for "where did we discuss x". docs: notion mcp. searching across workspace + updating pages from claude beats the ui for repetitive stuff. weekly updates, meeting notes, status docs all flow through it now. image/video: higgsfield mcp. one connection gets you sora 2, veo 3.1, kling, seedance 1.5, soul id, nano banana. cinematic controls are the part i actually keep using — generating a 5-second shot with specific camera movement from inside claude saves the tab-switching loop. design: figma mcp. pulls tokens, component specs, frame contents straight into context. makes design-to-code prompts way more accurate because claude actually sees the spec instead of guessing from a screenshot. browser: playwright mcp. clicking around, scraping, filling forms. heavier than fetch but does the real work when you need actual interaction, not just html. files: anthropic's filesystem mcp. reading local files, organizing folders. boring but you use it constantly — basically the default mcp for any local workflow. what am i missing? submitted by /u/BoogBro94 [link] [comments]

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]

Things you lose then Control- we want to build tools to augment and elevate people, not entities to replace them.

TL;DR per chi ha fretta: OpenAI fa A/B testing su utenti senza disclosure (sia free che paid) Uno di questi esperimenti si chiama “things you lose then control” “Things” = utenti. “Lose” = abbandono. “Control” = riportare nel funnel Altri sistemi chiamano questi test “user retention” / “subscriber recovery” OpenAI ha scelto “things”. Questo articolo documenta perché è rilevante. Link alla discussione tecnica con ChatGPT 5.5 in test blind ( non sapeva che stava commentando un prodotto OpenAI) PREMESSE NECESSARIE Dopo il primo giro di commenti su Reddit, mi tocca scriverle DAVVERO. Jeez. “MA È SOLO GERGO TECNICO TRA PROGRAMMATORI” Sì, “things” è terminologia comune in programmazione. Anche “users” lo è. Anche “subscribers”. Anche “accounts”. Anche “members”. Anche “entities”. Anche “records”. Anche “profiles”. Anche “sessions”. Anche “instances”. Il dizionario tecnico inglese offre dozzine di opzioni semanticamente equivalenti. Quando programmi un sistema di retention, puoi chiamare la variabile in mille modi: Opzioni tecnicamente corrette che implicano agency umana: users_at_risk_of_churn subscriber_retention_cohort account_recovery_candidates member_reengagement_flow customer_winback_experiment Opzioni tecnicamente corrette neutre: entities_to_retain records_flagged_for_retention profiles_in_recovery_funnel sessions_to_monitor Opzione scelta da OpenAI: things_you_lose_then_control Versione estesa su Substack submitted by /u/fanriel_kerrigan [link] [comments]

Managed 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/

Passed Claude CCA-F with 10+ teammates — notes and prep advice

Over the past few weeks, 10+ people on our team have taken and passed the Claude Certified Architect – Foundations (CCA-F) exam. After comparing notes, our main takeaway is: This is not really an API memorization exam. It is much closer to a scenario-based architecture judgment exam. You are not just asked whether you know a Claude feature. You are asked whether you can make reasonable design trade-offs when Claude is used inside real products, agent workflows, developer tools, and automation systems. Some of the recurring questions are more like: Should this task be handled by one agent or multiple sub-agents? Is this tool doing too much? Are the permissions too broad? Is MCP actually needed here, or is it over-engineering? Should this action be automated, or should there be human review? How should structured output be validated? How should long-context workflows be managed reliably? What is the safest next step in a partially automated system? Here are our notes for anyone preparing for the exam. 1. Basic exam structure Based on the official outline and public exam writeups, the exam is: 120 minutes Multiple choice 4 options per question Score range: 100–1000 Passing score: 720 The exam domains are: Agent architecture and orchestration — 27% Tool design and MCP integration — 18% Claude Code configuration and workflows — 20% Prompt engineering and structured output — 20% Context management and reliability — 15% One public writeup also mentioned that there are 6 scenario categories, and the exam randomly selects 4 of them. So this is not a “random facts about Claude” exam. It is much more about reading a realistic scenario and choosing the safest, simplest, most appropriate architecture. 2. The three principles that kept coming up After reviewing the questions we struggled with, we found that many of them came back to three design principles. 1. Least privilege Do not give a tool, agent, or workflow more access than it needs. Examples: If read-only access is enough, do not grant write access. If access to one repository is enough, do not grant access to the whole workspace. If a tool only needs one narrow action, do not expose a broad system-level capability. If an action is high-risk, do not fully automate it without review. A lot of wrong answers look attractive because they are powerful or automated. But they often give the model or tool too much authority. 2. Single responsibility A tool should not do everything. A sub-agent should not become a “general-purpose employee” that retrieves data, makes decisions, modifies files, submits changes, and notifies people all in one step. Many questions test whether you understand where the responsibility should live: Should this be a tool? Should this be agent reasoning? Should this be a human decision? Should this be a separate validation layer? Should this be split into smaller components? If one component is doing too much, be careful. 3. Avoid over-engineering This was probably the biggest pattern. Some answers look sophisticated: Multi-agent orchestration Complex MCP workflows Long-term memory Fully automated tool execution Multi-stage validation pipelines But if the problem is small, narrow, and low-risk, the best answer is often the simplest controlled solution. Our internal summary was: Do not choose the most impressive architecture. Choose the smallest, safest, most controllable one. 3. English reading is a real hidden challenge For non-native English speakers, this may be one of the hardest parts. The questions are often long scenario descriptions. They may include: the current system design the team’s goal existing constraints the risk profile what tools are available what the next step should be The answer choices can also be long. Sometimes one word changes the meaning of the whole option. Words like: automatically always unrestricted without review full access all repositories execute directly can make an option much riskier than it first appears. So our advice is: Practice reading English scenarios directly. Do not rely on translation tools. During the actual proctored exam, you should not expect to use Google Translate, Chrome translation, DeepL, Claude, ChatGPT, or any other external translation tool. For the last few days before the exam, it is worth forcing yourself to read only English material and English practice questions. 4. ProctorFree exam setup The exam is online and uses ProctorFree. The rough flow is: You receive the exam email. You follow the exam link. You download and install ProctorFree. You complete the pre-exam setup. The system checks camera, microphone, network, and screen recording. You start the exam. The session is recorded. After submission, you wait for the upload to complete. Practical setup tips: Use only one monitor. Disconnect external displays. Close unnecessary applications. Clos

Use Case: How I chain ChatGPT+Agents+Codex workloads

Context: I run interaction forensics and how people, communities, narratives, institutions and companies impact AI. Please note, all operations are human+AI. Summary: I have used digital forensic tools/OSINT in the past such as Maltego and wwanted a tool I could integrate with AI. So I built my own Airgapped. This tool is the first iteration and will later be used to assist in high-risk controlled environments such as child protection agencies. This is the current architecture and workflow. https://preview.redd.it/26w74lxfgz1h1.png?width=1935&format=png&auto=webp&s=4a064b2f5e84e230913f9e7758de2b29a1f41ac8 Tools Used and function: * Codex+Manus: Assistance in building the tool and incorporating logic. Bulk transfers of older method to current database. Data was collected by me and sorted into our database structure. * Agents: Amending and adding bulk data to database. * GPT+Manus: Verification and updates of data. The final output: Interface: https://preview.redd.it/t2x6v9l0iz1h1.png?width=1776&format=png&auto=webp&s=c1be628542af6420eb4efee9f7ec62c2d40146f9 Inferences and patterns identified when AI (LLM+AGENTS) review data. https://preview.redd.it/nkdio3z5iz1h1.png?width=832&format=png&auto=webp&s=01d0f0bc45e1968d0c692d712932f03e35969924 I add my own as well. Along with collaboration with AI to validate my understanding. Evidence based Artifacts: All knowledge is sourced and tagged https://preview.redd.it/fwcmjn28jz1h1.png?width=1253&format=png&auto=webp&s=861dcf33480d6e22919cf563a362c1c33c044734 These tie into a pattern identification graph so I can identify what may or may not be related. https://preview.redd.it/pegwypialz1h1.png?width=1424&format=png&auto=webp&s=d4b50e756354dc021fc106f5e91da3015ae0bd74 Would love any feedback for improvements. Please remember, the next iteration is for child protection where I intend to airgap a localised LLM with training corpora. The main idea is to MINIMISE users from having to review images and identify patterns/locations to expedite rescue. I want to add, this is also entirely self funded. I run a separate business to ensure I have funds for this and potential future hardware/licensing. submitted by /u/ValehartProject [link] [comments]

Adaptive Markdown

I’ve been working on an open-source document format / viewer idea I’m calling Adaptive Markdown. The basic idea is: instead of a document being static text it's controlled by coding agents. You interact with the document more like a live workspace. This has different implications depending on what you are doing. I made a short video demo here: https://youtu.be/xf6jxf-hyP4 The thing I’m most excited about is academic / technical reading. In a few years I don’t think people will just read papers passively. I think they’ll translate passages, ask questions, generate examples, explore alternate proofs, run code, attach notes, convert math to Lean when possible, and keep all of that inside the document instead of scattered across chats and notebooks. This is trivial to do inside a browser with coding agent that has access to JS, CSS etc. Some possible use cases I’m thinking about: Any document is just a starting point! You can project it however you want. Turning articles and books into personalized learning objects lecture notes with automatically maintained structure documents with embedded code, tables, consoles, images, audio, or video Incorporate Adaptive Markdown into automated work flows eventually, things like automatically recording audio in lectures and taking a picture of a blackboard and turning it into LaTeX notes inside the document It’s very early, but the workflow already feels surprisingly useful to me. GitHub: https://github.com/SemiSimpleMath/Adaptive-Markdown Curious whether this seems useful to anyone else, or whether I’m just overexcited because I built it. So far it's only configured for Anthropic coding-agent SDK and Codex. The goal is to have this run entirely locally someday. submitted by /u/IDefendWaffles [link] [comments]

I built the smart speaker we always wanted

I wanted to see if Claude can handle Vibe Hardware Engineering to help me make a smart speaker. Turns out, it can! I call it boxBot. It helped select the hardware set, raspberry pi, Hailo , respeaker mic, pi camera, waveshare screen and speakers. Helped me calculate thermal loads and dissipation rates for a passive cooling setup. I made the box by hand out of walnut. The agent inside is custom as well. You could probably throw openclaw on it and call it a day but I wanted to craft something that was tightly coupled with the hardware more secured considering it’s sitting in my living room with a camera and mic. The agent is highly skills driven with only a small set of tools, everything else goes through Python scripts and a custom made boxBot sdk the agent can use to control the box and the display. The display system uses a widget framework so the agent can easily read what’s displayed without a screenshot and can effectively manipulate what’s on the screen. The agent uses json to specify how the widgets should be arranged on the screen and what data should flow into them. When building a smart speaker, there’s a lot of nuance to human conversation that voice agents really struggle with, like background noise, side conversations, barge-in, etc. I was able to simplify the logic a ton by making it agent driven, the agent can control when to mute the mic to ignore background chatter, it decides what order to work vs talk, it can choose what channel to respond in; voice or WhatsApp. Instead of complex rules, agent driven hardware plus skills can provide a much richer experience, now that boxBot manages the family calendar my wife wants a text whenever I put something on it, boxBot updated the calendar skill with that request so now when I add something, it sends her a message. Just one line in a .md file and you get the desired behavior. It’s incredibly flexible and simple. I could nerd out on the details about the memory system, struggles with woodworking, and security details but I’ll save that for the comments if people want to chat. It’s open sourced if you want to inspect. Still a work in progress but after a few months it is finally feeling like a useful assistant to the family day-to-day. Www.github.com/dv-hart/boxbot submitted by /u/FunScore645 [link] [comments]

Adaptive Markdown

I’ve been working on an open-source document format / viewer idea I’m calling Adaptive Markdown. The basic idea is: instead of a document being static text it's controlled by coding agents. You interact with the document more like a live workspace. This has different implications depending on what you are doing. I made a short video demo here: https://youtu.be/H4MnFs8irm8 The thing I’m most excited about is academic / technical reading. In a few years I don’t think people will just read papers passively. I think they’ll translate passages, ask questions, generate examples, explore alternate proofs, run code, attach notes, convert math to Lean when possible, and keep all of that inside the document instead of scattered across chats and notebooks. This is trivial to do inside a browser with coding agent that has access to JS, CSS etc. Some possible use cases I’m thinking about: -Turning articles and books into personalized learning objects - lecture notes with automatically maintained structure -documents with embedded code, tables, consoles, images, audio, or video -AI-generated alt text and descriptions Incorporate Adaptive Markdown into automated work flows eventually, things like automatically recording audio in lectures and taking a picture of a blackboard and turning it into LaTeX notes inside the document It’s very early, but the workflow already feels surprisingly useful to me. GitHub: https://github.com/SemiSimpleMath/Adaptive-Markdown Curious whether this seems useful to anyone else, or whether I’m just overexcited because I built it. So far it's only configured for Anthropic coding-agent SDK, but in couple of days we will have it running on Codex as well. submitted by /u/IDefendWaffles [link] [comments]

Adaptive Markdown

I’ve been working on an open-source document format / viewer idea I’m calling Adaptive Markdown. The basic idea is: instead of a document being static text it's controlled by coding agents. You interact with the document more like a live workspace. This has different implications depending on what you are doing. I made a short video demo here: https://youtu.be/H4MnFs8irm8 The thing I’m most excited about is academic / technical reading. In a few years I don’t think people will just read papers passively. I think they’ll translate passages, ask questions, generate examples, explore alternate proofs, run code, attach notes, convert math to Lean when possible, and keep all of that inside the document instead of scattered across chats and notebooks. This is trivial to do inside a browser with coding agent that has access to JS, CSS etc. Some possible use cases I’m thinking about: -Turning articles and books into personalized learning objects - lecture notes with automatically maintained structure -documents with embedded code, tables, consoles, images, audio, or video -AI-generated alt text and descriptions Incorporate Adaptive Markdown into automated work flows eventually, things like automatically recording audio in lectures and taking a picture of a blackboard and turning it into LaTeX notes inside the document It’s very early, but the workflow already feels surprisingly useful to me. GitHub: https://github.com/SemiSimpleMath/Adaptive-Markdown Curious whether this seems useful to anyone else, or whether I’m just overexcited because I built it. So far it's only configured for Anthropic coding-agent SDK, but in couple of days we will have it running on Codex as well. submitted by /u/IDefendWaffles [link] [comments]

Opus 4.7 Low Vs Medium Vs High Vs Xhigh Vs Max: the Reasoning Curve on 29 Real Tasks from an Open Source Repo

TL;DR I ran Opus 4.7 in Claude Code at all reasoning effort settings (low, medium, high, xhigh, and max) on the same 29 tasks from an open source repo (GraphQL-go-tools, in Go). On this slice, Opus 4.7 did not behave like a model where more reasoning effort had a linear correlation with more intelligence. In fact, the curve appears to peak at medium. If you think this is weird, I agree! This was the follow-up to a Zod run where Opus also looked non-monotonic. I reran the question on GraphQL-go-tools because I wanted a more discriminating repo slice and didn’t trust the fact that more reasoning != better outcomes. Running on the GraphQL repo helped clarified the result: Opus still did not show a simple higher-reasoning-is-better curve. The contrast is GPT-5.5 in Codex, which overall did show the intuitive curve: more reasoning bought more semantic/review quality. That post is here: https://www.stet.sh/blog/gpt-55-codex-graphql-reasoning-curve Medium has the best test pass rate, highest equivalence with the original human-authored changes, the best code-review pass rate, and the best aggregate craft/discipline rate. Low is cheaper and faster, but it drops too much correctness. High, xhigh, and max spend more time and money without beating medium on the metrics that matter. More reasoning effort doesn't only cost more - it changes the way Claude works, but without reliably improving judgment. Xhigh inflates the test/fixture surface most. Max is busier overall and has the largest implementation-line footprint. But even though both are supposedly thinking more, neither produces "better" patches than medium. One likely reason: Opus 4.7 uses adaptive thinking - the model already picks its own reasoning budget per task, so the effort knob biases an already-adaptive policy rather than buying more intelligence. More on this below. An illuminating example is PR #1260. After retry, medium recovered into a real patch. High and xhigh used their extra reasoning budget to dig up commit hashes from prior PRs and confidently declare "no work needed" - voluntarily ending the turn with no patch. Medium and max read the literal control flow and made the fix. One broader takeaway for me: this should not have to be a one-off manual benchmark. If reasoning level changes the kind of patch an agent writes, the natural next step is to let the agent test and improve its own setup on real repo work. For this post, "equivalent" means the patch matched the intent of the merged human PR; "code-review pass" means an AI reviewer judged it acceptable; craft/discipline is a 0-4 maintainability/style rubric; footprint risk is how much extra code the agent touched relative to the human patch. I also made an interactive version with pretty charts and per-task drilldowns here: https://stet.sh/blog/opus-47-graphql-reasoning-curve The data: Metric Low Medium High Xhigh Max All-task pass 23/29 28/29 26/29 25/29 27/29 Equivalent 10/29 14/29 12/29 11/29 13/29 Code-review pass 5/29 10/29 7/29 4/29 8/29 Code-review rubric mean 2.426 2.716 2.509 2.482 2.431 Footprint risk mean 0.155 0.189 0.206 0.238 0.227 All custom graders 2.598 2.759 2.670 2.669 2.690 Mean cost/task $2.50 $3.15 $5.01 $6.51 $8.84 Mean duration/task 383.8s 450.7s 716.4s 803.8s 996.9s Equivalent passes per dollar 0.138 0.153 0.083 0.058 0.051 Why I Ran This After my last post comparing GPT-5.5 vs 5.4 vs Opus 4.7, I was curious how intra-model performance varied with reasoning effort. Doing research online, it's very very hard to gauge what actual experience is like when varying the reasoning levels, and how that applies to the work that I'm doing. I first ran this on Zod, and the result looked strange: tests were flat across low, medium, high, and xhigh, while the above-test quality signals moved around in mixed ways. Low, medium, high, and xhigh all landed at 12/28 test passes. But equivalence moved from 10/28 on low to 16/28 on medium, 13/28 on high, and 19/28 on xhigh; code-review pass moved from 4/27 to 10/27, 10/27, and 11/27. That was interesting, but not clean enough to make a default-setting claim. It could have been a Zod-specific artifact, or a sign that Opus 4.7 does not have a simple "turn reasoning up" curve. So I reran the question on GraphQL-go-tools. To separate vibes from reality, and figure out where the cost/performance sweet spot is for Opus 4.7, I wanted the same reasoning-effort question on a more discriminating repo slice. This is not meant to be a universal benchmark result - I don't have the funds or time to generate statistically significant data. The purpose is closer to "how should I choose the reasoning setting for real repo work?", with GraphQL-Go-Tools as the example repo. Public benchmarks flatten the reviewer question that most SWEs actually care about: would I actually merge the patch, and do I want to maintain it? That's why I ran this test - to gain more insight, at a small scale, into how coding ag

I offloaded bulk file reading from Claude Code to a cheaper model for a week. Here are the numbers.

Hey r/ClaudeAI — I use Claude Code a lot, and I noticed I was wasting a surprising amount of my usage limit on stuff that was basically just reading. Big files, long diffs, Jira/Linear tickets with comment history, docs pages, repo spelunking. Useful context, but not always something I need Claude to consume raw. So I built a small open-source sidecar tool called Triss. The rule is simple: Cheap model reads the bulky stuff. Claude gets the summary and does the thinking/editing. This is not a Claude replacement. I still keep architecture, debugging, careful edits, and final judgment with Claude. Triss is for the boring high-token intake step. One week of actual usage This is my real DeepSeek usage from May 6–13, 2026: Pro Flash Total Requests 143 66 209 Input tokens 3.74M 2.10M 5.84M Output tokens 833K 156K 990K Cost (USD) $1.88 $0.34 $2.22 That came out to about 1 cent per request on real coding work, not a benchmark. The important part is not only the DeepSeek bill. It is that Claude never had to carry those raw 5.8M input tokens in its own context. A ticket or file bundle that might have eaten tens of thousands of Claude tokens becomes a short summary, and the main conversation stays lighter. What I delegate The pattern that stuck for me: A single file over ~400 lines. 3+ files where I only need a structured summary. Jira/Linear/GitHub issues with comments and metadata. Web pages or docs pages. First-pass diff review. Commit message generation from a staged diff. What I do not delegate: Architecture decisions. Hard debugging. Precise edits. Small questions where the delegation overhead is larger than the task. What the tool does Triss can run as a CLI or as an MCP server, so Claude Code / Claude Desktop / Codex can call it as a native tool. The commands I use most: bash triss ask --paths src/foo.ts src/bar.ts --question "Summarize the control flow and risks" triss fetch https://example.com/docs --question "Extract the setup steps" triss review triss commit-msg triss usage --by-project It also has tracker integrations for Jira, Confluence, Linear, GitHub, and GitLab, because ticket/API payloads were one of the biggest hidden context sinks in my workflow. The default setup is DeepSeek, but it works with OpenAI-compatible endpoints too: DeepSeek, Kimi, Ollama, OpenRouter, etc. Credit where it is due The original idea came from Kunal Bhardwaj's write-up: https://medium.com/@kunalbhardwaj598/i-was-burning-through-claude-codes-weekly-limit-in-3-days-here-s-how-i-fixed-it-0344c555abda and his proof of concept: https://github.com/imkunal007219/claude-coworker-model My version is basically that pattern made more specific to my own workflow: MCP tools, tracker integrations, review/commit helpers, usage logging, and path sandboxing for agent calls. Links GitHub: https://github.com/ayleen/triss-coworker Install: npm install -g triss-coworker Setup: triss config wizard Open-source, MIT, unaffiliated with Anthropic. I do not get paid if you install it. I mostly wanted to share the numbers because "use a cheap model for bulk reading" sounded obvious to me in theory, but it only became habit once it was wired into Claude as a low-friction tool. Happy to answer any questions. submitted by /u/Proper-Mousse7182 [link] [comments]

Claude Platform on AWS reference - what's new in CC 2.1.139 (+2,248 tokens)

NEW: Data: Claude Platform on AWS reference — Reference documentation for using the Claude Developer Platform through AWS infrastructure, including AnthropicAWS clients, required region and workspace configuration, SigV4 authentication, and short-term API keys. Agent Prompt: Conversation summarization — Adds requirement to note security-relevant instructions or constraints (sensitive files, forbidden operations, credential handling rules) and preserve them verbatim in the summary so they remain in effect after compaction. Agent Prompt: Recent Message Summarization — Same security-relevant instructions preservation requirement added to the recent-portion summarization flow. Data: Live documentation sources — Adds WebFetch URLs for Claude Platform on AWS and its required IAM actions documentation. Skill: Building LLM-powered applications with Claude — Reframes cloud-provider access so Claude Platform on AWS is treated as Anthropic-operated with same-day API parity and full Managed Agents support, while Bedrock, Vertex, and Foundry remain Claude API + tool use only. Skill: Dynamic pacing loop execution — Reorders steps so the brief confirmation (task ran, monitor as wake signal, fallback delay choice) is written as text before the schedule-wakeup call ends the turn. Skill: /insights report output — Removes the trailing additional-message block from the shareable report response. Skill: /loop self-pacing mode — Same reordering as dynamic pacing loop: confirm self-pacing, monitor wake signal, and fallback delay as text before the schedule-wakeup call. Skill: Model migration guide — Adds a Claude Platform on AWS section noting it uses bare first-party model IDs and that the full rename table and breaking-change sections apply verbatim, distinct from Bedrock. System Prompt: Auto mode — Drops the "Auto Mode Active" header and reframes destructive-action guidance generically rather than auto-mode-specific. System Prompt: Harness instructions — Removes the standalone note that automatic context compaction will trigger when conversations grow long. System Prompt: Memory instructions — Replaces 3–4 word titles with short kebab-case slugs, nests type under a metadata block, and introduces [[their-name]] cross-links between related memories. System Prompt: Partial compaction instructions — Adds the same security-relevant instructions preservation requirement so sensitive-file rules, forbidden operations, and credential handling carry across partial compactions. System Reminder: Output style active — Lets an output style supply its own per-turn reminder text, falling back to the default "follow the specific guidelines" wording. System Reminder: Task tools reminder — Removes the instruction telling Claude to never mention the reminder to the user. System Reminder: TodoWrite reminder — Removes the instruction telling Claude to never mention the reminder to the user. Tool Description: PowerShell — Adds a substantial reference table mapping Unix commands (head, tail, which, touch, wc, mkdir -p, rm -rf, ln -s, chmod, 2>/dev/null, inline VAR=x, bash control flow) to their PowerShell equivalents, and clarifies that -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue still causes exit 1 unless promoted to terminating and caught. Details: https://github.com/Piebald-AI/claude-code-system-prompts/releases/tag/v2.1.139 submitted by /u/Dramatic_Squash_3502 [link] [comments]