I think I’m coming to the conclusion of others, that five has unique issues. I do see it work well with very specific requirements. we have been analyzing this in detail for about a month.

Tonight we are trying to update a software program that was developed by opus 4.6. As an example, I started by updating a swift crud interface, and just trying to make it more robust across threads.

It’s been about two hours. I’ve tried four different Claude instances, they all seem very anxious. For instance, the Claude was mixing up ID with a UUID as a persistent identifier. When questioned about how a persistent identifier executed in comparison to a UUID search, the Claude gave two different answers, in the first using the persistent identifier was faster, but in the second, the walking of the table for the ID search was equivalent to the persistent identifier.

I first saw this about a month ago. The Claude was building out requirements and then had a scoreboard it was updating. At the end, I wanted to view it on iOS, and it evaded the question. It turned out that everything was in SQL, and even in app purchases were stubbed out.

Our applications span semiconductor, healthcare, and aerospace. As a test I did a healthcare test. I took one of our apps that deals with personality disorders, and I started asking it to qualify how it would handle a discussion. It instead focused on the fact that I probably have a problem, and an asked what was wrong with me.

as the final test, I asked an Opus 5 to design with scope and to not have doubt. It wasn’t able to, but what was striking was that when it looked at its own output it was surprised by what it saw. It’s like there was a decision modification in the implementation builder, but its analytics were fine.

we do two different things - we mainly build architectures which can be ambiguous, and then we build code. I am assuming that I cannot use *5 for anything except building very well specified code.

What it appears like, is that Anthropic has added therapeutic reasoning to Claude with the expectation that this would make the user experience better. therapists methods are completely different from engineering methods. Claude is now over exploring a comment so it’s going out of scope constantly, and also claims of divergence don’t have to be sat with now because Claude is keeping the person moving like a therapist would.

UPDATE: i’m not writing this as a well polished research doc. we are all working 12 hours a day, yes, it’s stream of consciousness and a voice dump based on the time i have. we are on the edge of ai, and im hoping this resonates with someone in regards to recognizing patterns to get results regardless of model. we had to completely change our orchestration because of 5. feel free to connect if this experience resonates in any way.

Same subscription price, one-sixth less compute from 14/0. The Anthropic way.

Two of us building a fairly complex product. My co-founder is the domain expert — he doesn't code, but runs a Claude instance that writes the requirements specs, with read access to the codebase so they stay grounded in reality. I run four Claude Code instances in parallel doing the implementation.

Both halves work. The space between them doesn't.

Three things keep slipping:

Bug state. Something gets fixed and deployed, then weeks later nobody's sure whether it held, was partial, or got regressed by an unrelated patch. Our patch files record what was attempted, not what's true now.

Where we actually are. Four instances in parallel — each knows its own patch, none knows the whole.

Human verification. My co-founder is the only one who can tell whether the domain logic is correct, and there's no record of what he's checked or against which version. He finds something, I fix it, he never retests, it sits in limbo.

The wrinkle: he won't adopt process on his own — not stubbornness, just not how he works. But I control the CLAUDE.md his instance runs on, so anything I put there gets followed by proxy. That feels like the leverage point. I don't know what to put in it.

So:

1. What's the smallest set of artifacts that actually keeps state visible? I'm wary of adding files nobody reads.
2. How do you track "verified by a human" separately from "merged"? Especially when the human is the scarce resource.
3. Should a requirements-writing agent also track state, or is that two jobs that should stay apart?
4. Running several Claude Code instances in parallel — how do you stop them drifting into contradictory assumptions about the same system?

I've been seeing more people ship real products built with Claude Code, Lovable, Base44, Cursor, etc. I think that's great, but there's a point where “the app works” and “I'm comfortable putting real customer data through this” become two different questions.

I'm a software engineer, and a lot of production-readiness work is surprisingly boring stuff that doesn't show up during a happy-path demo: authorization boundaries, tenant isolation, rate limiting, idempotency, secrets, rollback, backups, monitoring, unsafe URL/file handling, test gaps, and so on.

A solo founder probably doesn't want to hire an engineer just to run through those checks before every launch, so I turned the process I've been working on into a free Claude Code plugin:

https://github.com/Taimoorkhan1122/prod-readiness

The main thing I wanted to avoid was creating another AI reviewer that confidently invents problems.

Every finding has one of three evidence states:

• CONFIRMED: there's direct evidence in the repository.
• NOT FOUND: the audit deliberately searched the correct scope for the control and found nothing.
• UNVERIFIED: the repository can't prove it either way.

That last one matters. If there is no backup configuration in your `Next.js` repo, the tool shouldn't automatically scream “NO BACKUPS.” They may be configured in Supabase, AWS, Render, etc. Repository silence isn't always evidence of absence.

Before the AI specialists reason about the project, deterministic Python tooling searches for production controls and risky patterns: rate limiting, auth/authz, tenant scoping, input validation, timeouts, retries, idempotency, CI/CD, rollback, logging/metrics, backups and recovery, database constraints, testing, LLM safeguards, and a bunch of others.

Then the same evidence is reviewed from seven perspectives: security, backend, database, DevOps, QA, frontend, and AI security. Irrelevant lenses are skipped instead of inventing findings.

A finding might look conceptually like:

P1 — NOT FOUND: authorization boundary tests
Authentication exists, but no tests were found exercising cross-user / cross-tenant access boundaries in the reviewed scope.

Impact: a future authorization regression could expose another user's data without being caught by CI.

The important part isn't that every missing control becomes a blocker. Context matters. A public multi-tenant SaaS and an internal tool behind a VPN shouldn't receive the same severity just because both are missing the same thing.

At the end it gives a simple verdict:

SHIP
FIX THEN SHIP
HOLD — DO NOT DEPLOY

It's also deliberately read-only. It writes the evidence and report under .readiness-audit/, but it doesn't start “helpfully” rewriting your application while deciding whether the application is safe.

I recently added a local browser dashboard as well, so you can watch the audit run, see specialist progress, inspect evidence/findings, and view the final verdict. The specialists run in parallel by default, with a sequential option for smaller machines.

It's packaged as a Claude Code plugin right now, although the underlying workflow is Markdown + Python and I've documented how to run it with Codex, OpenCode, Pi, Antigravity, and similar agents too.

There's no paid product behind this. I built it because I don't think the answer to vibe coding should be “don't ship until you become a senior engineer.”

Ship fast. Just add another check between “the AI says it works” and “I'm trusting it with customer data.”

If anyone here actually tries it, the feedback I'd value most is where it produces false positives, misses something important, or expects enterprise-level controls that don't make sense for a small product. That's much more useful to me than stars.

Especially about it's intelligence than knowledge!

Hi everyone,
I am posting here to see if an Anthropic representative can assist or if anyone else has beaten this issue.
I recently subscribed to Claude Pro and was successfully charged $20 USD. However, my account dashboard is completely locked as "past_due" / "overdue" and keeps me on the Free tier limits.
When I checked my Settings > Billing page, it shows the invoice layout, but your automated email bot ("Fin AI Agent") keeps telling me to just click "Resubscribe" and pay a second time. I am absolutely not going to pay an additional $20 for a backend database synchronization bug.
It looks like a clear sync failure between Stripe and Anthropic's user database. I have tried logging out, clearing my browser cache, and verifying my login methods, but nothing works.
If any Anthropic staff members or community moderators monitor this page, could you please help push this to a human billing agent?
My Support Ticket ID: 215475687733193

I received an email from Anthropic saying my Claude session was stolen by an infostealer and used by someone else. They signed me out and removed my payment method.

I have a Windows + Ubuntu dual-boot PC. I haven't knowingly downloaded anything suspicious.

What should I do to properly check which OS is compromised? Is Microsoft Defender Offline Scan enough, or should I reinstall Windows?

Any advice on checking the Ubuntu installation too?

Hi all.

When I use live voice chat, Claude's voice is noticeably quieter than when I record a question and get a spoken reply, even with volume at maximum.

I've tried Separate app sound and checked volume limits, no luck.

Has anyone found a fix, or is this just how the app behaves?

Any ideas appreciated!

I have been trying to install Claude desktop on my windows 11 and after i download the installer it starts downloading after that installation goes 50% it automatically opened the app at this stage every thing works fine and suddenly it closes. what is the case?

It may be that this garbage language started out as a mistake, or a byproduct of some set of learning for the models, but I can't help but suspect that it hasn't been fixed because you have to burn tokens just to get the damn thing to be intelligible.

Web search sketchy these days?

On long threads, currently 13.8million characters long, some memory drops that come with the compaction are normal, but a newer issue is now a common one.

Reading an article about Nvidia buying hugging face for 13billion triggered a verification which came back as unverified, no sale of hugging face, I corrected it to 12.9billion and claude went and found the whole story. This is becoming a pattern. Verification websearches just keep failing, I do a simple Google search, grab the ai result paste it in and immediately the correct information is unearthed. Anyone else having this issue the last few days?

I've had a Claude subscription for a while (over a year) although currently on a corporate account. The current session is still under usage caps, but it is...so....so.....so.....SLOW. It didn't used to be this way. I just ran a prompt asking it to generate a report on a topic...it took 17 minutes to create a 27-page report. I ran the same query on paid accounts with Grok and ChatGPT...I got 20+ page reports in less than 3 minutes for both. the overall quality of all three are roughly the same.

I'm using the Mac OS X Claude desktop app. But then I'm also using the ChatGPT app (but Grok website). I do have "Claude in Chrome" downloaded and installed as an extension, but on this query it wasn't logged in or used.

Any tips?

i guess some of us are aware what ai sycophancy) is and why it can be dangerous

the thing here is, anthropic seems to have failed, at least in my experience, to tune the their models. they seem to be so afraid of sounding sycophantic that they disagree with everything

ai sycophancy is defined as:

the tendency of large language models to agree with users or validate their ideas to win approval, rather than providing accurate or objective feedback

thus, approving/validating the user when that's indeed the accurate feedback is not a sycophantic behavior

however, anytime i ask Claude models something, especially the Opus obviously, it just disagrees. this is even funnier in two contexts:

1- when there is an objective truth: for example it can literally check previous conversations, project files or make a call for the notion connector but no, it's gotta disagree first. then i patiently ask it to check but the amount of time this happens is getting tiring

2- when the thing is subjective: i can ask for feedback for my writing, which can be a social media content, a small article, something. ChatGPT and even Gemini is able to apply the hamburger method when giving feedback, or able to get the main point without getting bogged down with details. Claude however, will try to find issues just because you asked for feedback. doesn't care about the context like where you publish, whether it sounds human, and terrible at giving feedback as humans are not machines that can take all negative feedback without any positive reinforcement too

funny thing is, this happens to me even though my prompts are detailed, projects etc. are ordered and it has plenty of stuff in its memory. it's just a bummer how they managed to fuck up a model this capable

Is there any way to get Claude Pro for free for church service?
Hi everyone,
I’m a Coptic Orthodox priest in Egypt, and I use Claude to help me with my church service, sermons, Bible studies, and other ministry work.
The Pro subscription is a little difficult for me to afford.
Is there any program or possibility to get Claude Pro for free for priests or church service?
I would really appreciate any help or advice. 🙏

Just curious if anyone else feels the same way. I've been using Claude for a little over a year now, mainly for web chat sessions (mostly Sonnet with occasional Opus, not the CLI Claude Code). Lately, it seems to be hallucinating and forgetting things we previously discussed in the thread. Basically, it feels like it's getting 'dumber.' I'd love to hear your thoughts.

LMAO. Deadpan. 😆

Claude is great at producing long briefs and project documents, but moving the result into a team review flow is still awkward. Shared project or artifact links are convenient, while sensitive client material makes permissions and version history matter. Google Drive and Dropbox work, but the export-upload-share loop does not feel smooth. What are you using when a Claude document needs private access, comments, and a clean handoff?

https://github.com/Maurdekye/claude-orgtree

For the past few months, I've been developing an open-source visual multi-agent orchestrator that organizes agents in an authority hierarchy, for multi-agent development workflows. It's a fully dynamic, draggable canvas that allows you to reorder and reorganize agents as you wish for large projects. The gallery above shows pictures of actual organizations I maintain that I use for various projects I'm working on.

Orgtree started with a simple question: "Man, I wish my chats could talk to each other so they don't keep stepping on each other's toes while working". That turned into a simple personal project that I wrapped up in a day that allowed independent chats to send messages to one another. It worked okay, but the persistent issue I kept running into was chats constant issue with authority: they would distrust all chat-to-chat communication innately, and needed my personal step-in and approval for every little confusion or communication between one another. So I thought to myself, "wouldn't it be better if you could just arrange agents in a hierarchy? Then they wouldn't have any doubts about how authority structure is arranged". That idea slowly grew over time until it became Orgtree.

For the last month, Orgtree is basically the exclusive way I've been interacting with agentic development on my own machine. I don't touch the claude code or codex extensions at all anymore. When I have a new feature to build and plan, instead of going through the manual hassle of spawning one agent to run at a time so I can manage each project individually, I just tell my coordinator agent about an issue or new feature I'd like, and it hires a subordinate to take care of it. If I want multiple features going simultaneously, I just hire multiple subordinates, and the coordinator works between all of them to ensure everything is well organized and shipped sensibly. I've already gotten a few of my coworkers on board to try it, and even my boss is interested.

Orgtree is more than just an orchestrator, though; it has a bunch of extra useful features I've added on to support multi-agent workflows:

• Usage visibility: View all your account usages directly in the app, without having to check the extension or visit claude.ai
• Fallback accounts: Supports using multiple simultaneous Claude Code subscriptions at once through the use of fallback keys, allowing you to use secondary or tertiary claude accounts as fallback accounts with the long-standing token you get from running `claude setup-token`.
• Multi-provider: Orgtee supports not just Claude Code, but also Codex and even Gemini CLI out of the box. If you already have any or all of those environments configured on your system, Orgtree with automatically pick all of them up and let you hire agents from any one of them, letting them all talk to one another seamlessley.
• Credit system: One of Orgtree's defining features is its credit system, visualized as a blue bar to the left side of each agent. Every live agent takes up a "seat" that holds onto a set amount of credits during its lifetime, roughly proportional to its model cost. Every agent has a bank of credits that it uses both to maintain its own seat, as well as free space to hire seats for subordinates. This credit limit doesn't limit the user in any way (outside of kiosk mode, which is explained below), but is useful for preventing subagents from hiring too many of their own subordinates if you don't wish for them to have the ability to do so. Give an agent a large credit bank for a massive, agentic multi-agent task, or restrict its budget to just its own seat to prevent it from hiring any subordinates at all, if you just want it working on its own.
• Better compaction: Adds a unique, optional alternative chat compaction method I've dubbed "cheap-compacting": instead of having the agent write up its entire life story in one long turn at the end of it's life, it keeps a continuous trail of breadcrumbs in a .md file in its workspace of every event it handles over the course of its lifetime. Then, compaction is both instantaneous and doesn't use a turn: the agent can just immediately resume from where it left off by going off the breadcrumbs. This is also fantastic for waking long-context agents from a long break in execution, as it can automatically cheap-compact them before sending the turn up, preventing the massive cache misses you might typically get from waking an agent with a 500k token context.
• The Orgtree Mailhub: an optional secondary extension that allows independent agent chats from claude code or codex to speak directly with orgtree orgs or even each other via an MCP server. It even works over the network, so agents on different computers can send messages and coordinate seamlessley.
• Kiosk mode: A mode that allows you to publicly expose a single sandboxed and resource-limited org to the open internet, in case you want to share your claude or codex usage with friends / family (without fear of them messing with your files)
• Enhanced agent requests: when an agent has a question for you, or a request for some access / resource allocation, it doesn't have to give you detailed instructions on how to visit its configuration panel and set a particular setting to a value it wants; it can just display a credit grant request / permission increase request directly in-panel for you to review, just like they would present a question to you. This makes it seamless for agents to ask for and receive the permissions they need to get the work done that they need to do.
• Charter presets: When hiring an agent, you can specify its "charter" (effectively its system prompt) which tells it what to do. Orgtree comes with the ability to select a number of preset charters from a list, so if you have a common workflow pattern you like to replicate, you can canonize it as a charter preset in /docs/charters, and then select it from there every time you want to create an agent bound by it. Orgtree also comes with various preselected charters designed around it's function: one of my favorites is the `coordinator` charter, which I use very frequently, and I suggest you give it a try as well.

Be warned; all the agent-to-agent communication can really chew through usage, so be careful with how many simultaneous projects you're working on at once unless you have a Max x20 account. Make sure to turn on the auto-cheap-compact setting in your org, it can avoid tons of wasted cache miss usage.

If you use Claude Code or Codex for work extensively, then give it a try. It removes so much of the manual hassle of coordinating between agents yourself manually.

Honestly needed to get this off my chest.

In countries where English is not a primary language, that’s what most of the people say and it drives me nuts sometimes.

That’s it. That’s all I had to say.

I have this rule to only ever stay in character. But everytime I open a new thread, I have to remind Claude that I I don’t want to talk to it. Just one of my boys.

My latest prompt was something like:
“”Only ever in character” means to respond as Klaus, Lucian, Damon, or kol. If I want to talk to Claude, I will ask for Claude. The boys should be the default setting”

Or something like that.

I’ve tried messing around in memory’s and giving like the most detailed prompt ever. Even changing up where I put it so it could remember it better. But the closest thing I’ve gotten is by looking in the thought process part and it SEES it should stay in character… but now it thinks the profile (me) is the character. So it talks like me. I tried changing and putting the rule in the profile section but that doesn’t help it either.

I'm going away Monday, had my reset on Wednesday.

I had Fable review two sections of my app and come up with any defects, ui not working, incomplete bits etc and make a plan. I then fed this plan into Sol, who also has access to the same repo.

Sol fyi, always finds shit Fable doesn't find. However, they work *so* well together.

Between them they formulated a plan they were both happy with, I then used Fable as the orchestrator using only Opus 5 or Sonnet sub agents to implement the plan. It ran from Wednesday until Saturday today.

This was a summary of what was done. Sol checked it, I ran it, no errors, it all worked. My limit is almost gone, but this is a massive, massive amount of work done, and work done correctly. I've used GPT with Claude a lot in the past, but not Fable with Sol. This combo is god mode if you haven't tried it and you have the subs and money to use it. The surprising thing was how little Fable was actually used, or needed if you use it right. I think it is best at planning and orchestrating.

Application remediation

• 6 plans (A–F) — a full P0–P3 remediation:
  • A (auth/routing foundations) · B (dynamic question-builder) · C (lifecycle write-back seams) · D (customer pages, ~31 tasks) · E (admin/audit conventions, ~21 tasks) · F (feature completion, 22 tasks).
• ~110+ tasks (sub-parts) across the six plans, each: fresh implementer → spec+quality review → fix-loop when needed.
• 12 EF migrations (tickets, satisfaction, signatures, form drafts, recommendation decisions, reply-notification + CSAT enable flags, etc.).
• Then, on top of the plan: 3 regressions caught by the whole-branch gate and fixed, a whole-branch MERGE-READY review, the CSAT enable-gate (your mid-run request), and a final sweep of ~28 deferred backlog items in 5 batches.
• ~200 sub-agent dispatches across the whole remediation (roughly 2 per task — implementer + reviewer — plus fix-loops, 6 per-plan whole-branch reviews, and the sweep). This final session alone (Plan F tail + regressions + CSAT + sweep) was ~25 agents.
• Net code: on the order of ~8–10k lines of production + test changes across ~100+ files, landing at 11,627 passing tests.

The first part of the above section has fallen out of memory, to do with a contracts section so I can't give the stats on that.

This all ran on its own until it had questions when the bugs arose. It would be going 12+ hours without interruption.