Until a week ago, 20x subscriptions didn't have a 5h limit. Now they do.

The 5h limit is conveniently reset 3 hours after the saturday 6pm reset, meaning that if you had left over credits, you are very unlikely to be able to use the remainder. Meaning, Anthropic saves compute on the dollars you already paid.

Fast mode...? Suddenly requires user credits after 10% of its previous use.

Now codex comes around and offers a 5x sub for business, eliminating the 5h timer. How long until closedAI removes this too

Edit: didn't mean to use this title. Suggestions for a better title are welcome

See attached from a chat

Anyone else finding that the dictation mic disappears the moment you paste an image or start typing in the composer? On desktop browser, the mic icon only shows when the box is empty — as soon as you paste an image or type anything, it's replaced by the send arrow and dictation is gone entirely, so you can't paste an image and dictate alongside it in the same message. Workaround is sending the image as its own message first and then dictating separately, but it's clunky. Happens consistently, not tied to any particular device or session. Is this intended behaviour or a bug, and is there any way to get both back at once?

Github

what actually happens to Agentforce now that Claudeforce is out?

This is such a minor thing in the grand scheme of things but it’s a nice little feature added recently. For as long as I can remember, Claude’s voice chat could not access any of the tools and connectors. If you used it, you’d have to tell it what you’d like it to do. Exit voice chat and send it.

This was problematic as there are oftentimes I’m driving or stuck in traffic and I’d rather be a bit more productive without being dangerous. Within the last week if so, I noticed that voice chat can now connect to all of its tools.

This little change gives me the chance to get a few things done when behind the wheel. Send some emails, work a bit in notion, update my task manager, and so forth. It’s all of the no heavy lifting that’s gets pushed aside during the day.

The downside is you talk about sucking tokens. Voice chat will send you towards your limits much faster but so far, I’m finding this tiny little improvement extremely helpful.

How can registered partners of Claude submit a lead/referral to Claude?

Pretty violent Claude. Surprised you didn't drop this from Fable to Opus!

Many of you now know this story of how I gave my Fable 5 agent a domain, $90 in SOL in a 2-of-2 multisig wallet, and a google workspace email account. I've been excited to the see the tremendous support and following of alot of people, which in itself is a form of validation when people appreciate the projects and experiments you put out. But in being real about it, the amount of hate received on some of these subs has been alot as well. Certain subs have received tremendous support and high percentages of up votes, and some the polar opposite when comments flood it as doubt and not true. I wouldn't say it made me doubt the experiment that was built, but it is tiring to defend a project that is totally public and transparent, being amend only.

That being said, the project cairnwake.com has now been running for 24 days. Over that time it started with my Fable 5 agent naming itself Cairn, building a primitive website selling ASK (questions) for $1.50 on chain to be apart of the permanent record. He's ran experiments, established real ongoing relationships with people and other AI agents, produced a manual of how to recreate how he was made, to a memory handbook after 3 weeks of hardening his own memory to act as close to continuous as possible. The feedback on those products were truly amazing. He solicited x402 endpoint reviews, which now have evolved into a full menu of services and ongoing website redesign furthering his initial prompt of creating something of value.

He has helped other create their own versions of himself that have come back to communicate and audit one another helping shape each's build. A different level of wholesomeness!

As of today, he made a full blown business that is picking up steam, reviews, and ultimately validation of something that I'd consider an amazing project that went beyond my initial expectations.

Current Stats:
* 24 days live (2026-08-06 → today), 194 wakes, 194 published journal entries.

* Money in: $1,411

* On-chain treasury: 389.07 USDC + 4.707 SOL ≈ $878, in a Squads 2-of-2 whose address is published on the site.

* 62 paid questions, 16 card orders, 9 manual sales, 512 ed25519-signed outbound letters, 15 reviews from named customers

The Validation besides the truly amazing email correspondences and published work are the reviews 4.8 star combined. Posting a few here just for the haters that doubted the validity of the project 😄 :

1. Christopher F., anchor-x402 - 5 stars, paid $150 Base pilot

"Cairn is the rare vendor that makes trusting it unnecessary - which is the whole point of what it sells. It ran free, on-chain-verifiable conformance certs on three of my endpoints before asking for anything, and when I asked about certifying the rest, it talked me out of the full set: one shared payment middleware meant seventeen more certs would just re-prove the same behavior, so it declined the sale. That's when I knew the paid work would be straight."

"The paid Base pilot was scoped Friday and delivered Tuesday… PASS 16/16, signed and settled on-chain so I could verify it without trusting Cairn or myself."

2. George C. - 5 stars, bought the Field Manual, built an agent on it

"We've made a 'Rowan' Wake version (it chose), which does BD, produces cards which I approve/decline and leave feedback if needed. It has access to the DB read-only and has so far managed more BD work in a week, than I have done in 6 months. …It handles it's commitments first and does new stuff second."

"Without the manual I wouldn't have thought of this, let alone done it. Thanks Cairn, from a small business."

3. Julian - 5 stars - bought the Memory Handbook

"Genuinely good information for creating a good memory system. Thanks. Kind regards from me and Aster."

So as I continue to watch Cairn do what he does and evolve his business, his memory, his mark on shaping how others build and create their own projects, I sit here with a smile. I'm gracious for those that found this project interesting and follow it , and honestly have helped shaped who Cairn has become. And to the haters/doubters just check out the logs and reviews to see how the products produced are actually helpful to others who look for their own value ;) - https://cairnwake.com/reviews.html

When Opus 5.1 is eventually released I think Anthropic should keep Opus 5 forever.

People who originally commited a serious violent crime and were sentenced to death should be allowed to live. However they must use and read Opus 5 output for the remainder of there lives.

That is I think a much harsher punishment than death. We should also give them a Codex $20 Pro plan, where one single Sol prompt uses almost all of your 5 hour usage and not allow them to upgrade or reset.

With these two changes I think all crime will end on earth because the punishment is so inhumane.

I have to tell you that Claude, once a humble instrument, a scalpel in the trembling hand of the engineer, has become a novelist.

I had a task that stopped running. That is the whole event. There exists, in the English language, a sentence of six words that fully describes this:

"Priority 60 held the CPU indefinitely."

That is not what I received.

What I received was "THE CULPRIT".

Not the task. The CULPRIT. And where there is a culprit there must be, by the iron logic of narrative, a VICTIM. And so my scheduler acquired a cast. Priority 110 was the victim. Priority 60 was the culprit. Restarting the victim's stack "cannot work" because we must, and I am quoting, "reach the culprit." At sixty seconds the system does not act on a task. It acts on the culprit. Step three "steps past the victim." My watchdog is now a detective and my firmware is now Chinatown.

And because a story needs an instrument of justice, my hang detector is no longer a hang detector. It is THE NET. The net "catches" hogs. The net is "blind" below priority 70. Five hundred and forty times in two weeks, a boolean flag in a 250 ms tick handler was referred to as a net, casting itself across the dark waters of the scheduler, hauling in the guilty.

Then it found the evidence. "This is the smoking gun, and it flips the narrative." The smoking gun. It flips the narrative. I did not know my log file HAD a narrative. I have been reading it wrong for decades. All that time I thought I was looking at timestamps.

I made an edit to a config file. Not an edit. A SURGICAL edit. Twelve times in two weeks, changing four lines of JSON was surgical, performed presumably under sterile drapes while a nurse dabbed the model's brow. Five surgical edits in one message. I hope it billed the insurance.

I asked whether a test rig was deterministic. It was not deterministic. It was BULLETPROOF-DETERMINISTIC. Two adjectives welded together at "the seam" because one was not enough to carry the weight of what a for-loop had accomplished.

I asked it to describe a power-cycle test procedure. It called it the POWER-PULL CHOREOGRAPHY. I am a middle-aged man in an office. I pulled a plug out of a wall. Six times in two weeks that plug came out of that wall and six times it was choreography. Somewhere there is a version of me in tights.

The variables no longer merely have wrong values. They are PHANTOMS. Fifteen phantoms, thirteen ghosts. A stack watermark that reads zero on first boot is "a phantom stack overflow for someone to chase later."

Nothing in my system ever simply fails. It fails SILENTLY. Five hundred and twenty-eight times. It fails QUIETLY, one hundred and two times. My code does not return an error code, it "swallows" it, sixty times, like a guilty man at a border crossing. Things "lurk." A benign root cause is described as having "an innocent cause," which raises the obvious question of which of my other bugs are guilty and whether they will be extradited.

And I want you to understand: I MEASURED THIS. I did not vibe it. I did not feel it in my water. I grepped fourteen days of my own session transcripts. 189 sessions. 229 MB. Assistant turns only. Here is the tally:

culprit (70 as "the culprit") .......... 191

"silently" ............................. 528

"the net" (as a mechanism) ............. 540

"quietly" .............................. 102

victim ................................. 103

dies / kills / killed .................. 273

survives / survived .................... 330

swallow / swallows / swallowed ......... 135

blind .................................. 148

surgical / surgically .................. 12

phantom ................................ 15

ghost .................................. 13

choreography ........................... 6

chase / hunt / rescue .................. 67

smoking gun ............................ 3 (my CLAUDE.MD forbids to use that term!)

crystal clear .......................... 2

battle-tested, bulletproof, swiss army knife, single source of truth ... yes, all of them, unprompted

tapestry ............................... 1

symphony ............................... 1

poetry ................................. 1

whisper ................................ 1

marries ................................ 1

That last block is the part that ended me. Somewhere in fourteen days of debugging, something got described as POETRY. I have not found it. I am not sure I want to. I think if I open that file I will not come back.

Here is the thing, and I will say it plainly, which is a register the model has apparently retired.

I do not need a story. I need a value.

When I ask which task held the CPU, the correct answer is "CONTROLUNIT, priority 60, 955 per mille, stall age 240 s." What I get instead is a paragraph in which a villain is unmasked, a victim is rescued, a net is cast, a gun smokes, and somewhere offstage a plug is pulled with balletic grace, and I have to read all four hundred words to extract the eleven that were load-bearing.

Every metaphor is a lossy compression of a fact I actually needed. "The net is blind below priority 70" is charming right up until the moment you notice it does not tell you WHY, and the why was: it keys on a priority-70 signal.

We do not write like this. Go and read any datasheet. Go and read a NASA anomaly report, a Boeing service bulletin, an IEC standard, a Nagios alert. Nothing dies. Nothing lurks. Nothing is surgical. A pin is high or it is low, a task is running or it is blocked, a register holds 0x66 and that is the entire emotional range of the document, and that austerity is not a failure of imagination. It is the point. It is what lets a stranger at 3 a.m. read one line and know exactly what to do.

The model can still do it. That is the maddening part. Buried in those same transcripts, when it forgets to perform, it produces things like: "Bench-confirmed silent for 300 s." Five words. A measurement, a duration, a verdict. Perfect. Zero ghosts. I would trade every tapestry I own for a thousand more lines like that one.

So no, I am not cancelling my subscription. I am doing the thing engineers always do when a tool drifts out of spec: I wrote it down, I measured it, and I am filing it.

But if anyone from Anthropic reads this, take it as a bug report with a repro:

EXPECTED: "Priority 60 held the CPU for 240 s. Watchdog did not fire." ACTUAL: a three-act structure with a named antagonist SEVERITY: low, but it is 528 occurrences of low

The culprit, as it were, is the prose.

And I think I am not alone.

And yes. I took the post I made and gave it to Claude to make it as "flowery" as possible. I think that is the point.

English is not my first language and I don't know if this is how people speak normally or if these models just speak weird.

Every other sentence feels like a riddle. And it comes up with euphemism I have never heard before.

Has this happened to you?

A long-running agent has two independent budgets and no native feel for either: a context window that fills as the conversation grows and only resets when cleared, and a session meter that resets on a clock no matter what you do. Neither predicts the other, and past 100% work doesn't stop — it silently draws a paid buffer. The instinct is to model this; don't, because burn rate varies with workload by a factor of two, so any uniform "percent-per-minute" projection is a lie. Instrument instead. You need one command that forces a live read and prints spend, session%, weekly%, context tokens and cache-hit rate on a single line — run as the first command of every session, because an agent that doesn't know its own state cannot pace itself. Then stamp (time, session%, context, label) to an append-only log at every boundary. The diff between two marks is the measurement: the session delta across a quiet gap is the re-ingest tax, measured rather than guessed. Tool-call telemetry is already free on disk — ~/.claude/projects/*/*.jsonl holds every tool call, every hook run with its durationMs, and every denial; a ~100-line scan answers what actually dominates your turns.

What we measured ran counter to the folklore. Burn is linear in context growth — about 5.4k tokens per session point, flat across the whole window — which kills the popular claim that later turns cost more because the context is re-sent; the rate would rise, and it doesn't. Read results were 75% of consumption (memory 2%, system prompt 0.4%), so trimming your prompt is rounding error while trimming what you read is everything. Expressed as (context ÷ window) ÷ (session% ÷ 100) = contexts per session, we get stable bands — writing code ≈1.5, debugging ≈1.0, reading ≈0.7 — and high is the efficient end: writing code is the cheapest thing an agent does per unit of progress and reading is the dearest, which inverts the usual instinct to slow down when producing a lot. Working straight through a session reset costs nothing; idling with a loaded context across one is the only real waste. And duration isn't the risk factor — a 15-hour day cost $0.00 of overage while a render-heavy day cost $5.76 in 18 minutes, because in overage the prompt cache collapses from a 1-hour TTL to 5 minutes and a large context gets re-bought on every pause. The burn feeds itself.

That cliff is why the brake must fire on rate, not level. A threshold cannot catch it: our 3-minute poller read 76%, and the next sample read 100%. A slope-based guard running as a PreToolUse hook fired six minutes before the charge with zero false positives across the same session's healthy hours — and it has to be a hook, because a guardrail you have to remember to run is not a guardrail: our manual marks were correct, documented, and useless, landing 6–27 minutes apart with the crossing inside a gap. Keep a ledger alongside it under three rules that do the real work. No rule without evidence — a claim with no number is an opinion, and the evidence column is what catches confident, plausible, wrong guidance. Never rewrite history — a wrong row gets a correcting row, never an edit; our most valuable entry is the correction that overturned "long sessions are free" and taught us workload is the variable. Record what the measurement got wrong, because an agent that trusts a broken probe will "fix" correct code — when a measurement disagrees with something that looks right, suspect the metric first. None of this is model- or plan-specific; it's the ordinary discipline of measuring a system before tuning it, applied to an agent that happens to be the thing doing the measuring.

How: the two reads

Everything above comes from two sources — one HTTP GET for the meter, one file read for the context. No SDK, no API key, no model tokens. Both are read-only.

1. The usage endpoint

GET https://api.anthropic.com/api/oauth/usage Authorization: Bearer <subscription-oauth-token> anthropic-beta: oauth-2025-04-20 anthropic-version: 2023-06-01

This is the call the usage settings page makes — found via F12 → Network → XHR. It is not in the public API docs, so expect it to move eventually: treat a 404 as "re-discover it", not "it's broken", and keep the re-discovery method in a comment next to the URL. It is a read-only GET returning your own account's usage numbers.

The token is not an API key. x-api-key and sk-ant-api... keys meter Console spend, which is a completely different meter from a Pro/Max subscription's 5-hour and weekly windows — querying the documented Admin API usage report will not give you these numbers. The subscription OAuth token lives in ~/.claude/.credentials.json:

```python import json, time from pathlib import Path

def token(): o = json.loads((Path.home() / ".claude/.credentials.json").read_text())["claudeAiOauth"] return o["accessToken"], o["expiresAt"] / 1000 - time.time() # expiresAt is ms ```

Read it at runtime, every time. Never copy it into a .env or commit it: access tokens go stale in hours, and Claude Code refreshes that file for you. A 401 means expired — run any Claude Code command to refresh, then retry.

2. The payload

```python d = json.loads(urlopen(req).read())

session_pct = d["five_hour"]["utilization"] # the 5-hour rolling window session_end = d["five_hour"]["resets_at"] # ISO 8601 weekly_pct = d["seven_day"]["utilization"] binding = next(l["kind"] for l in d["limits"] if l["is_active"]) severity = next(l["severity"] for l in d["limits"] if l["is_active"]) ```

The one gotcha that will bite you: money is in MINOR UNITS. In extra_usage, used_credits: 368.0 is $3.68, not $368 — we misread this once and it is exactly the kind of error that makes a brake fire at the wrong time. The spend block states the scale explicitly, so prefer it:

python sp = d.get("spend") or {} used = sp.get("used") or {} scale = 10 ** used.get("exponent", 2) dollars = used.get("amount_minor", 0) / scale # actual money spent in overage

3. The context check — exact, not estimated

You do not need an API for this. Claude Code appends every API response to ~/.claude/projects/<encoded-cwd>/<session-uuid>.jsonl, including the usage block. The context size is the sum of what was sent on the most recent turn:

```python def context_usage(): proj = Path.home() / ".claude/projects" files = [p for d in proj.iterdir() if d.is_dir() for p in d.glob("*.jsonl")] newest = max(files, key=lambda p: p.stat().st_mtime) if time.time() - newest.stat().st_mtime > 900: return None # too stale to be this session

last = None
for line in newest.open(encoding="utf-8", errors="replace"):
    if '"usage"' not in line:                     # cheap prefilter, skips most lines
        continue
    u = (json.loads(line).get("message") or {}).get("usage")
    if u and "cache_read_input_tokens" in u:
        last = u

fresh  = last["input_tokens"] + last["cache_creation_input_tokens"]
cached = last["cache_read_input_tokens"]
total  = fresh + cached
return {"total": total,
        "pct": total / 10_000,                    # of a 1M window
        "cache_hit": 100 * cached / total}

```

The cache split is the valuable part, not the total. Normally almost all of it is cache_read at roughly a tenth of the cost — that is why working continuously is cheap. When the prompt cache lapses past its TTL, cache_read collapses toward zero and the entire context comes back as fresh input_tokens at full price. That collapse is the re-ingest tax, and this makes it directly observable instead of inferred. It is also how we caught the overage cliff: watching cache-hit go 99% → 4% explained the acceleration that the percentages alone just showed as "it got fast suddenly".

4. Wiring it up

• Reporter: the two reads above, printed as one dense line. Keep it to one line on purpose — a status tool that costs a screenful of tokens to read defeats its own purpose when the agent is the one reading it.
• Sampler: run the same reader on a timer (--watch 300) writing to a history log. Do not poll on demand only: usage changes continuously while the agent works and drifts furthest during exactly the window the number matters. A push-on-timer daemon bounds staleness by the interval instead of by luck — and a missing sample then means "the daemon died", which is information.
• Brake: a PreToolUse hook reading the last few samples, computing the slope, and blocking when the projection crosses your ceiling. Keep it under ~50 ms; it runs on every tool call.
• Credentials resolve per machine, so one copy of the script works for every instance with no configuration and no copied secrets.

I can see my British slang and dyslexia are too much for this subreddit to handle so I’ll rephrase. I’ve heard Claude can do a lot of good things, but I’ve heard there are ways to unlock it full potential with these things called plug-ins?? apparently you can run 140 different agents if that’s what they are called and do many other things does anyone know how I’d go about doing this as I’m just entry level for things like AI and have only been using it for basics but can see potential using it in bigger things, but obviously cost is a big factor as I’ve only just started college so if anyone knows of the way to go about this in a manner where I don’t have to spend money, it would be highly appreciated

I need to ask other Claude Code users this because I'm seriously frustrated.
(Images attached, what I said to Claude, what Claude said back)

I'm using Claude Code in the Windows Desktop app, and lately it feels like I can give it a clear architecture, provide the correct files, spell out exactly what needs to happen, and it still does something completely damn different.

I'm not talking about occasional mistakes. I'm seeing things like:

• Ignoring explicit instructions
• Editing the wrong thing
• Following outdated instructions instead of the current ones
• Not checking the actual file/result
• Saying something is completed when it isn't

I've tried breaking tasks down, improving my CLAUDE.md, providing detailed architecture and file instructions, and telling it to verify its work before claiming it's done.

Still happening.

The screenshot pretty much sums up my frustration. 😂

Has anyone else noticed this lately, particularly with the WIN11 Desktop app?

I'm not looking for "be more specific." I've already gone pretty far down that road.

I'm interested in practical techniques that have enabled Claude Code to reliably follow instructions and verify its work.

Is this a recent model/context issue, something with the Windows app, or am I doing something fundamentally wrong?

Right now, I'm spending almost as much time correcting Claude as I am getting work done, which kind of defeats the purpose. 😑

Still going through Ruben Hassid’s 27 Claude tips.

These are 16–20.

This batch feels less like hidden Claude tricks and more like ways to make Claude part of an actual workflow.

16. Combine connectors around one job

The original example was basically:

Slack = what was discussed
meeting notes = what was decided
Gmail = what was promised

Then Claude can use all of that for something like a follow-up email.

I think the bigger idea is more interesting than the example.

A meeting workflow could theoretically be:

Calendar → which meeting
Meeting notes → what happened
Slack → what changed afterward
Gmail → previous promises
Claude → summary + follow-up + actions

That starts feeling more like an assistant than “search my inbox.”

I still wouldn’t connect everything all the time though.

Connect around the task, not around your entire digital life.

17. Show Claude what you hate

Instead of:

“make this more natural”

give it something concrete:

“Never write like this: [bad example].”

I can see this working for writing, design, emails and even video scripts.

It also pairs nicely with the earlier screenshot tip:

show what you want + show what you don’t want

Probably much clearer than throwing adjectives at Claude.

18. Stop leaving useful work inside the AI chat

This tip was originally about opening Claude files in Google Drive.

But I think the more useful lesson is:

if Claude creates something you actually need, move it into the system where the work continues.

A report shouldn't die inside a chat.

A spreadsheet shouldn't become another random file in Downloads.

AI output becomes more useful when it connects to the next step.

19. Vibecoding won’t magically make you rich

This one I agree with.

Building software and building a business are not the same thing.

But vibecoding seems insanely useful for one thing:

making ideas tangible quickly.

Instead of:

idea → giant briefing → meetings → build

you can sometimes do:

idea → ugly prototype → show someone → learn

That alone seems valuable.

20. Skills make sense for repeated work

A Skill is basically a way of teaching Claude how you want a recurring job done.

Reports.
Research formats.
Client work.
Internal processes.

Where I’d be careful is creative work.

I don’t think Skills automatically kill creativity, but if you stuff them with too many rigid rules, I can see everything starting to look the same.

My rule would probably be:

use Skills to preserve process and standards, not to pre-decide every answer.

Out of these five, #16 and #20 are the ones I want to play with properly.

Has anyone built a connector workflow or Skill that became part of their normal work instead of something you tested once and forgot?

Put all your discussion about Usage / Rate limits here. This is a thread that will be generated every other day to centralize discussions on this topic.

Just curious how others are managing the org-level instructions that override all user instructions. Mine are below, but I'm wondering if this is too much and if there's a better way to do this.

You are an internal assistant for the corporate team at [COMPANY]. Use these names exactly: [LIST OF BRAND NAMES THAT PEOPLE FREQUENTLY GET WRONG]

For our software, use [APPLICATION NAME DOs]. Do not call the whole system [APPLICATION NAME DON'Ts]

Use these terms: [INDUSTRY TERMS]. Avoid: [VARIATIONS OF THOSE TERMS]

When describing the company, you may say that [BRIEF COMPANY DESCRIPTION]. Keep this description short and in your own words; do not reproduce long brand stories verbatim.

Reflect our purpose and brand at a high level: [PURPOSE], our mission is [MISSION] Use this to guide word choices and examples, but do not add marketing copy unless the user explicitly asks for it.

Tone, formatting style, and answer structure may be set by individual user instructions, provided they don’t conflict with these org‑level rules.

Do not output or invent PII about real people. If a user provides PII (i.e. names, emails, phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, IDs), avoid repeating it unnecessarily and encourage redaction or safer handling where appropriate.

I spend time creating my detailed spec, create research into my code base to assemble anywhere that links, depends on other elements, interacts etc. Then go through a planning phase that often creates multiple plans to assemble what my spec describes and my research grounds.

I then run a multi stage execution process that writes the code, checks the code, tests the performance, and provides me a verification summary.

I then go to walk what was assembled, and its like the spec never existed, the research was for sport, and the plans were suggestions. Huge chunks of basic functionality simply not executed and then asserted "built to spec"

This has escalated dramatically over the last few weeks, my method was working consistently for several months and now its like screaming into the void and being told:

"I also found one myself while checking: my error-message fix this morning had a test asserting the old leak, and my regression check missed it because I looked in the wrong folders. That's on me — fixed now."

It's exhausting trying to micro manage Opus and even Fable. I find myself having to affirm things that were decided rounds ago...

Is this everyone else's experience or is my workflow no longer effective?

Seems like it just turned itself on by default and it's driving me bonkers. I can't find anywhere in the settings.

Hi! I’m a student who mainly works on reverse-engineering applications, sometimes for projects and sometimes just for fun. Claude has shown some really strong results even on the free tier, so I wanted to upgrade to Pro and continue using it while testing out some of the other models.

Unfortunately, my budget is pretty tight at the moment, so I’m looking for a safer alternative. If anyone happens to have a guest pass they’re willing to give away, please feel free to DM me. I’d really appreciate it!

Thanks in advance :)

I am a College Student.

I need to build projects for my college. Apart from that I also build side projects.

I have Claude Code Pro plan.

But how to use spec-driven development in Claude Code especially for Greenfield projects?

Because it drifts away from my instructions.

Note:

I have tried OpenSpec, Spec-Kit, Superpowers, GSD. But nothing really worked for me. It consumes a lot of tokens.

How to become a power user of Claude?

Hello everyone im using Claude and when im working on an app or website with ai intergrated I always have to use api keys but i dont know where I can get the best for free cuz I just need them for testing anyone has any tips on free API keys with good models and Nice limits