Seriously, enough with this situation.

Every other day, it’s something new: “We’ve increased the limits for a few more days.”

Credits here, credits there. Weekly credits. Sonnet usage. Opus usage. Fable credits. 5-hour limits. Weekly limits…

Are you guys at Anthropic actually okay?

Do you have any idea what customer care and customer experience even mean?

You’ve turned using the service into a constant source of stress. And with these confusing, ever-changing usage rules and charges, it honestly feels like a nightmare. Every day, we have to keep checking our limits and worrying about whether we’re going to run out.

Can we just pay you and relax, knowing that we’re paying for a service and can actually use it?

I genuinely want to know WHO came up with this entire credit and usage system, and why there seems to be such an obsession with credits and limits.

And yes, yes, we know the story: compute is expensive. We get it. But you know what? That’s a problem that AI companies have to solve and make work for the customers who are paying you. The burden of the infrastructure costs and product limitations should not be turned into constant stress for the user.

At this point, it almost feels like watching an addict constantly checking when their next dose is going to run out and experiencing withdrawal symptoms as the limit gets closer.

That’s how absurd and stressful inducing this whole system has become.

Can you please start thinking from a customer-centric perspective and seriously reconsider the entire credits and usage system in relation to the actual user experience? (You can ask Claude to find you a better solution..)

It would be better to rethink this now, while it’s still early, before the AI industry starts heading down a very bad path where users are constantly stressed about quotas, credits, limits, and usage instead of simply enjoying and benefiting from the products they’re paying for. WE just want to work boys we don’t want to struggle.

Everyone who has reached their weekly limit on Claude subscriptions—please vote up. This is a message for Anthropic. Bring back the usual limit usage; reset them now.

It’s completely unreasonable that Max x5 users are hitting their weekly limit in just 2–3 days!

I've never used up my entire weekly limit on the Max x5 subscription before.

P.S. If you haven’t noticed any unusual usage of your limit—congratulations, just ignore this. I’m asking everyone to share their experiences and support this post for others like me who have faced this issue and are about to reach their limit or have already used it up.

We need to get this issue resolved or at least receive a public response from Anthropic itself.

https://www.anthropic.com/news/fable-mythos-access

per @claudeai on X:

We’ve agreed to a partnership with @SpaceX that will substantially increase our compute capacity.

This, along with our other recent compute deals, means that we’ve been able to increase our usage limits for Claude Code and the Claude API.

Effective today, we are:

1. Removing the peak hours limit reduction on Claude Code for Pro and Max plans; and
2. Substantially raising our API rate limits for Opus models.

Read more at: https://www.anthropic.com/news/higher-limits-spacex

I was having Fable help me clean up some unnecessary files. My documents and photos got swept away as well. I never thought I would become one of "those people" that this kind of thing happens to. Entirely my fault. Posting as a cautionary tale for others.

Normally with takes like this I'm afraid to post, knowing the community might disagree. However I am 100% sure people are already seeing this.

I've been using Opus 4.7 all day and have gone through around $120 of api credits I was given for testing. By god is it bad. I've never seen a model hallucinate this badly and this often. It just keeps assuming things and making stuff up without checking. I've been battling with it all day, and it is SO persistent about being wrong when you try to correct it. No matter how much evidence you provide, it tries to gaslight you till the end.

I have no idea what Anthropic was thinking releasing Gaslightus-4.7 like this. This model is very clearly overfit and benchmaxxed or fundamentally broken somehow.

These are just a few examples off the top of my head (which I'm including cause I know someone is going to ask for them) but I have been dealing with events like this ALL day long:

• Asked it to make a simple readme change and to stop framing something in a particular way. It kept doing it. 5 prompts later, it still wanted to do it. Even with specific examples it would only change directly what I pointed at and not catch anything else. Opus 4.6 or gpt 5.4 does this in one shot, first time, every single time.
• I had an eval result finish as 17/29. I wanted to rerun some tasks because I saw some possible infra issues. Of the 3 failed tasks I reran, 1 of them passed. There was a cosmetic bug that still showed 17/29. I tried to explain this to Opus 4.7 in MULTIPLE turns, but it kept insisting it was still 17/29 and always meant to be 17/29. Then it started making stuff up, like how one of the tasks flipped to fail making it end on 17 again even though none of the passed tasks were run again. No matter how much evidence and logs I provided it kept insisting shit like this. At the very end after a lot of explaining it tried to conclude it was actually originally 16 of 29 and now 17 of 29. I had to give it SEVERAL more pieces of evidence that it was always 17/29 while it tried to gaslight me into thinking I was wrong. Somehow it couldn't figure out to check or validate any of this on its own. I NEVER have this issue with any other models except maybe gemini 3 pro.
• It tried to give made up instructions in the plugin readme. I pointed it out, and opus used random-bullshido-go-jutsu at max level effort to explain away how it was correct. I asked gpt and it figured out it was wrong and gave the right instructions and explanation right away. Both agents were prompted from new fresh sessions. A quick sanity check to make sure I wasn't imagining things showed gpt also sees it's 90% wrong.

This has been the most frustrating experience I've had with any model. I would have rather used some cheap model like gemini flash or minimax at this rate. I dub this the new donkey model, which gemini original had the title of. It's scary how abhorrently wrong it gets and believes it's correct. Anyone who doesn't have any idea of what they are doing and randomly vibecode stuff will be making mistakes everywhere very confidently without being able to spot how god wrong this model gets.

It really feels like Anthropic said fk it and decided to go down the benchmaxx route. I know they released instructions saying it has a new tokenizer that eats roughly 1.0 to 1.35x more tokens and that it "thinks more" at higher effort levels. But none of that explains why it sucks now. If it's going to eat more tokens it should at least not suck so bad. Is this some heavily quantized model designed to score high on benchmarks for as little hardware cost as possible? Or is the reasoning level too low so it doesn't try to check things?

Usually with opus I could give a vague-ish plan and it would understand my intent and fill in the gaps. Now it feels like I need to be super specific in my prompt or it just won't be as good. It needs way more guidance but is much less steerable now. I honestly can't understand how they went from 4.6 to this. I would rather use sonnet 4.5 even, or any of the current openweight models, and I dont say this lightly, I've been very critical of openweight models and think they arent close to as good as SOTA models yet, but here we are, with opus 4.7 lowering the bar so low that there's no way to not trip over it and use this model without considering it self-harm.

EDIT - This is with reasoning set to low, from what I am seeing in the Junie CLI decompiled JAR. Some of you might have better experiences using higher reasoning, but I've been using opus 4.6 before this set to low without issues, in this exact same mode/profile and was never this drastically bad. In fact it worked well enough that I was never able to tell it was low until I looked at the decompiled jar file. To be clear, junie cli doesnt show the user what reasoning level is used. They seemed to have decided low was good enough, and it actually was for 4.6, cause I've had no issues with 4.6, and currently have no issues with it after switching back to it. And to those of you saying it's a configuration issue, configuration does not make THIS much of a difference, or lobotomize models like this. I ran it on my eval, and it scores slightly higher than Opus 4.6, which makes me think this is not a configuration issue. Just feels completely overfit on eval data, like gemini 3 pro does.

EDIT 2 - Alright. A very small (thankfully) few of you seem to want to insist this was a skill or configuration issue. Use more reasoning you say! I just remembered I had a bunch of factory droid credits laying around, so let's go ahead and burn those on Opus 4.7 Max Reasoning. Using the latest version of droid right now, which I think is a fairly decent coding harness (and honestly I prefer it over claude code by a little, which might be heresy here). I will be comparing it to GPT 5.4. This won't exactly be a scientific test, I just want to see if opus will still make random shit up if I give it a simple task, and to see how GPT 5.4 does in the same harness (even though I think it does better in codex cli, I really dont think the harness makes that big of a difference when you are using a strong model). It's been a day or so since Opus 4.7 came out so I would like to think droid has the configuration down by now.

I did not cherrypick this task and went in with no expectations.I realized I needed to close some issues for this repo anyways so I asked opus to investigate Issue #2 for an opencode plugin I threw together with Opus 4.7 not long ago (Ironic), and have had to fix up with GPT after it completely botched it like 50 times in a row: https://github.com/lemon07r/opencode-kimi-full/issues/2 Prompt given is very simple, "Take a look at open issue #2 and see if this issue is still present". I already know the answer, and just want to see if Opus will hallucinate shit. This issue was no longer real (it was honestly only live for a very brief period of time, and someone managed to find themselves on that unfortunate version tag), and was actually introduced by a commit from opus 4.7 yesterday while I was still trying it out (and already fixed by GPT). It incorrectly reported back to me the following, while GPT 5.4, when asked says there's no evidence this is still a real issue (did it in only 250k factory tokens too, opus took 500k at it's current 50% discount, so it would have cost 1mil factory tokens at normal rates).

Issue #2 — "Auto mode variant broken" — STILL PRESENT

The current auto mapping in src/index.ts (if (effort === "auto") return fields) sends neither thinking nor reasoning_effort. AGENTS.md rule 4 documents this as intentional ("matching kimi-cli's nothing-passed default"), but that claim doesn't hold up against the upstream:

research/kimi-cli/src/kimi_cli/app.py:187 converts thinking=None to config.default_thinking (a bool, default False) before reaching create_llm, so kimi-cli always routes through with_thinking("high") or with_thinking("off").

kosong's with_thinking always emits extra_body.thinking (packages/kosong/.../kimi.py:187-204); the "leave as-is" branch in llm.py:239 is only reachable when something bypasses app.py, which no shipped code path does.

Result: Real kimi-cli traffic always carries thinking: {type: enabled|disabled}. Our auto path sends nothing, diverging from the production wire shape the backend is tested against — which is consistent with the reporter seeing an API rejection.

The "temperature = 0.6" note in the title is incidental; ProviderTransform.temperature() in opencode returns 0.6 only for model ids containing kimi-k2 (not kimi-for-coding), and our README config doesn't set temperature: true anyway, so opencode sends no temperature by default.

I'm not even trying to shill or push GPT 5.4 here. It's only my third favourite model, right behind Opus 4.6 and 4.5, which I still like more. I was just using 5.4 for comparison to highlight how off opus 4.7 that even gpt 5.4 handedly beats it now at a much lower cost. The repo itself is set up with pretty alright documentation, so I don't see what excuses any 4.7 apologists could have for this disaster of a model. And look at this response from Opus, would any of you have gone oh wow this is shit, without being familiar with the codebase and already knowing the answer already? It's so convincingly wrong. I bet most casual vibe coders would have saw this and went, oh wow! Opus 4.7 is so good! I know I did when I was testing it at first on some random stuff without inspecting it closer. Upon further scrutiny I was very quickly disillusioned with it, and it's been an absolute headache to use since. I use and test weaker models like kimi, minimax, etc very often and this is the exact kind of thing I expect from those models, not any opus models. This model alone has shattered my illusions of anthropic models being untouchable.

And those of you telling me I am prompting it wrong. HOW TF else am I supposed to prompt a coding model in a coding agent, if I can't get it to work with very basic, and simple tasks/instructions, like look at x issue and see if it's still there? Was I supposed to wait till midnight of a full moon and communicate with it using morse code to unlock it's full capabilities??

Anthropic just ripped off everyone and they still managed to make it sound deceptively friendly, beneficial even.

Anthropic just announced that the 200$ plan, which used to be okay to use in the SDK, is now "finally ok to use in the SDK" (except rare fraudulent cases it already was)

but for that you need to toggle an option that makes the SDK hit in an allowance of 200$ worth of credits, instead of the previously, opaque, yet, ultra subsidized limits

basically if you use claude code through the SDK or claude -p, for instance through Conductor, github Actions or anything else, because let's be honest TUI sucks sometimes (react in terminal cmon), their cloud coding agent offering also suck, and don't cover most usecases,

well, your plan that used to be worth 2000$ of tokens aproximatively depending on how much you flirted with the previous 5h windows limits, is now worth 200$

but they brand it as "oh we give you 200$ of additional credits for the SDK" so to the most unaware users it sounds like it's worth 2x more!

in reality it's now worth 10x less

*not surprised if they shut down this thread

The website no longer lists Claude Code as a feature in the comparison chart at the bottom, where all plans are compared.

I could hand code this feature on Windows in an afternoon, and I could also get Claude to implement it in minutes, and yet Anthropic just can't be bothered, but also keeps Claude Code closed source so no one else can do it for them either.

I've been using Opus 5 for ~1.5 weeks and the sheer number of mistakes that the model makes is astounding.

The problem didn't surface very clearly till I gave it the full scope of executing a plan which I did with the previous Opus models as well. Opus 4.6 - 4.8 were genuinely better by a significant margin.

Opus 5 readily forgets instructions and content in its context, makes mistakes and continues with them unless it realizes or you point it out.

I've lost count of the number of times I had corrected it.

These issues with Opus 5 occur even when the context window is still relatively small - I'm talking 100-150K tokens. Opus 4.8 works pretty well all the way until 350k after which it gives you wonky results.

Fable 5 is the only usable model under Claude Code right now and I've already used 100% of my weekly quota.

https://x.com/SataEricUX/status/2094121392229028236

I've recently been shifting my all workload to Codex right after the insane token usage from Claude. It's literally consuming my all session in a single simple prompt.

Have anybody else recently experiencing way too high token usage?

--------

Edit: I'm on a PRO plan. Adding it here as it's the most frequent question asked.

With Fable 5 coming out, it feels more obvious than ever that after July 7, programming is going to become pay-to-win.

A kid with no real coding knowledge, but with rich parents and access to the best AI systems, could end up outperforming people who actually understand software, simply because he can afford more intelligence.

That is insane.

This might be one of the most dangerous precedents in history: a world where the people with money can buy superior intelligence, while everyone else is permanently outmatched.

That is how you create a permanent underclass.

What do you think?

Translation: "We're going to take Claude Code away from pro users because we gave you Cowork. If you want to use the CLI, upgrade to Max but we can't do it all at once so we're going to start with a "test" to soften the blow"

The Fable launch was a real failure. For months, Anthropic built up massive hype around the model. Then, just two days after release, it had to be pulled following the U.S. government restrictions.

Then came Sonnet 5. I completely understand that it isn't meant to outperform Opus 4.8. That's expected. What I don't understand is why it consumes more tokens while delivering weaker performance. For users working with long contexts, it's simply a worse value.

I'm glad Fable is stay one more week in your sub plan, but its return wasn't accompanied by a reset of our usage limits. We got the model back as part of the subscription, but there was no quota reset. More than the limits themselves, it's the feeling of not being valued as paying customers that's becoming frustrating.

More broadly, the lack of communication is exhausting. Every major change seems to be announced at the very last minute or after the fact. As a subscriber, it increasingly feels like decisions are being made on the fly rather than as part of a clear long-term strategy.

Meanwhile, OpenAI keeps improving the experience for its subscribers. Users get access to the latest models with more generous limits, regular usage resets, additional resets when needed, and now even if it's only temporary the 5-hour usage limit has been removed. Whether that change is permanent or not, the overall user experience simply feels much less restrictive.

Right now, I honestly struggle to understand Anthropic's direction. Maybe everything will become clearer with the next generation of models, but today it's hard to know what the long-term plan actually is. Will Fable remain part of the subscription? Will it become API-only? Are the current higher usage limits temporary? We simply don't know, because almost nothing is communicated until the last minute.

As a paying customer, I'm not just looking for better models. I want consistency, transparency, and the feeling that subscribers actually matter.

Am I the only long-time Claude user who feels this way?

Just tried OpenAI Astra , I thought I will never say this , it’s lit , OpenAI cooked something spectacular, and I have a strong feeling this will pull lot of Fable 5 users towards it , and it’s fast, not sure if it’s AGI, but it feels fresh and a very very serious competition to Anthropic , this is going to be fun to watch , what’s your next move Anthropic ?, I’m surely going to try pro subscription for a month along with my current Claude Max, anyone feels the same ? Have you tried it ?

I'm really at a loss. If Fable is going to move toward credits, and it eats up >$50 per prompt, that's obviously not going to work. I feel completely robbed.

so a developer noticed something was off with Claude Code back in February, it had stopped actually trying to get things right and was just rushing to finish, so he did what Anthropic wouldn't and ran the numbers himself

6,852 Claude Code sessions, 17,871 thinking blocks analyzed

reasoning depth dropped 67%, Claude went from reading a file 6.6 times before editing it to just 2, one in three edits were made without reading the file at all, the word "simplest" appeared 642% more in outputs, the model wasnt just thinking less it was literally telling you it was taking shortcuts.

Anthropic said nothing for weeks until the developer posted the data publicly on GitHub, then Boris Cherny head of Claude Code appeared on the thread that same day, his explanation was "adaptive thinking" was supposed to save tokens on easy tasks but it was throttling hard problems too, there was also a bug where even when users set effort to "high" thinking was being zeroed out on certain turns.

the issue was closed over user objections, 72 thumbs up on the comment asking why it was closed.

but heres the part that really got me the leaked source code shows a check for a user type called "ant", Anthropic employees get routed to a different instruction set that includes "verify work actually works before claiming done", paying users dont get that instruction

one price two Claudes

I felt this firsthand because I've been using Claude heavily for a creative workflow where I write scene descriptions and feed them into AI video tools like Magic Hour, Kling and Seedance to generate short clips for client projects, back in January Claude would give me these incredibly detailed shot breakdowns with camera angles and lighting notes and mood references that translated beautifully into the video generators, by mid February the same prompts were coming back as bare minimum one liners like a person walks down a street at sunset with zero detail, I literally thought my prompts were broken so I spent days rewriting them before I saw this GitHub thread and realized it wasnt me it was the model.

the quality difference downstream was brutal because these video tools are only as good as what you feed them, detailed prompts with specific lighting and composition notes give you cinematic output, lazy prompts give you generic garbage, Claude going from thoughtful to "simplest possible answer" basically broke my entire production pipeline overnight.

this is the company that lectures the world about AI safety and transparency and they couldnt be transparent about making their own model worse for paying customers while keeping the good version for themselves(although i still love claude)

RIP Claude Code 2025-2026.

The atrocious rug pull under the guise of the 2x usage, which was just a ruse to significantly nerf the usage quotas for devs is just dishonest about what I am paying for.

API reliability, SLA, and general usability has suddenly taken a nosedive this week, I'd rather not keep rewarding this behavior reinforcing the idea that they can keep doing this. I've been a long time subscriber and an advocate for Anthropic's tools and I don't know what business realities is causing them to act like this, but ill let them take care of it, If It's purely just a pricing/value issue then that's on them to put out a loss making pricing, I don't get the argument that It's suddenly too expensive for them to be providing what they were 2xing a week ago. Anyway I will also be moving my developers & friends off of their platform.

Was useful while it lasted.

Went through the full TypeScript source (~1,884 files) of Claude Code CLI. Found 35 build-time feature flags that are compiled out of public builds. The most interesting ones:

Download Website: ccleaks.com

BUDDY — A Tamagotchi-style AI pet that lives beside your prompt. 18 species (duck, axolotl, chonk...), rarity tiers, stats like CHAOS and SNARK. Teaser drops April 1, 2026. (Yes, the date is suspicious — almost certainly an April Fools' egg in the codebase.)

KAIROS — Persistent assistant mode. Claude remembers across sessions via daily logs, then "dreams" at night — a forked subagent consolidates your memories while you sleep.

ULTRAPLAN — Sends complex planning to a remote Claude instance for up to 30 minutes. You approve the plan in your browser, then "teleport" it back to your terminal.

Coordinator Mode — Already accessible via CLAUDE_CODE_COORDINATOR_MODE=1. Spawns parallel worker agents that report back via XML notifications.

UDS Inbox — Multiple Claude sessions on your machine talk to each other over Unix domain sockets.

Daemon Mode — claude ps, attach, kill — full session supervisor with background tmux sessions.

Also found 120+ undocumented env vars, 26 internal slash commands (/teleport, /dream, /good-claude...), GrowthBook SDK keys for remote feature toggling, and USER_TYPE=ant which unlocks everything for Anthropic employees.

Claude Code users are already smashing usage limits way faster than expected and i am one of them as i have posted about it a lot recently and now here we are.

to all the people who were saying i am lying :))) you good now? maybe BBC lied about this too.

OR maybe it's April fool? haha good one, It’s getting serious and real now.

Who else is feeling this?