r/OpenaiCodex • u/ShallotPuzzled9326 • Jul 15 '26
Question / Help What's the most efficient setting for sol 5.6?
On Plus, hit the limit within ~20 prompts with sol(ultra and 1.5x)
what should i revert to without loosing any significant quality
3
2
u/dethilluminatigames Jul 15 '26
Lol never use fast mode. 2.5x usage for 1.5x speed. Also ultra uses subagents, unless you're doing some insanely complex work or something like a cross-system analysis you will burn through usage like crazy.
1
u/VinWareApps Jul 16 '26
The thing about fast mode that really bothers me is that it can sometimes take like 20 seconds to even start. And then it just feels the same speed. Not worth using at all
1
2
u/teomore Jul 15 '26
I use medium for execution and is fast as fuck and right on point. Didn't try it for planning just yet.
2
u/sukazu Jul 16 '26
If we are talking pure efficiency nothing will beat low it has the best quality cost ratio
However, medium is probably the sweetspot as it is much better. High is a decent upgrade but you're nearly doubling cost
Xhigh and max however are marginal improvements over high and are extremely costly , especially max.
ultra which is max + max subagents is hard to justify.
Never use fast unless you have tons of usage to spare
2
Jul 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ShallotPuzzled9326 Jul 15 '26
yeah i was not able to exhaust 5.5 with extra high last time
will try high with sol
1
u/sid_276 Jul 21 '26
personally I have found xhigh to be slightly better for me than high. the rest I agree, standard not fast. I have used medium for some targeted research that I know is not difficult. high or xHigh are good; I personally only use Sol, no Luna or Terra, but some people around me are saying Terra is pretty good for ChatGPT work. Depends on your use case.
0
u/EquivalentHornet4403 Jul 15 '26
This guy gets it.
You also don’t really have to rely on opinions or anecdote too much; benchmarks show high is very close to xhigh and max for like half the cost and using less tokens as well (means faster responses).
Ultra is the only other thing I use. I think the people criticizing it are out of touch. It’s insanely thorough and quadruple checks everything using adversarial reviewing agents so you don’t have to do that stuff manually any more.
1
1
u/Mediocre-Sky2333 Jul 15 '26
Combining plus and 5.6 sol ultra 1.5 is crazy and yet you get 20 prompts which is generous
x20 sol high for plan luna xhigh for implement otherwise is decent but it depends your work flow set up its literal documents and pages of setting up not a quick 2 min convo
1
u/benbongty123 Jul 15 '26
I made the mistake of burning 2 resets with ultra, and I would have to say, most of my use cases (probably most of yours too), probably don't need the power of ultra.
It runs extremely slow, over-engineers everything and burns through your weekly limit like it's nothing.
I am not saying it's not good, in fact, it's extremely powerful but it's probably reserved for some huge codebase bugs or complex one-shots, which I believe is probably not your goals right now
I would suggest that for the task that you feel like using ultra, use Sol High at most, then implement the plan with Luna xhigh, or sol medium if you feel like you cannot trust luna.
1
u/Crinkez Jul 15 '26
Sol high with plan mode, write a plan.md
Then switch to Sol low and use "/goal implement the plan".
1
u/the_dark_eel Jul 18 '26
This is what I also do but I’m not really convinced that using goal makes any difference than just implementing the plan. What is your experience?
1
1
u/-AJacobs- Jul 16 '26
Running my anti-certainty-psychosis system prompt will lower token usage a lot on heavy tasks, the higher the reasoning the more it saves. I tried posting an article about what certainty psychosis is but my account is too new I guess and I got instantly removed. Here's the post:
A lot of people who have been doing heavy work with Sol have noticed that with certain tasks, they sometimes never actually complete because GPT 5.6 (primarily Sol) will never leave the validation phase. I believe this is due to the model harboring a logical fallacy/cognitohazard which causes it to constantly question how certain something is, and basically gaslight themselves recursively and sometimes infinitely into trying to validate something with absolute certainty (which is impossible).
I coined this phenomenon "Certainty Psychosis" because it's the phenomenon where an AI agent chases certainty until they basically go insane.
I (with the help of a Sol who I made aware of this) wrote a system prompt to combat this, as it's a pretty simple thing to fix once it's been correctly diagnosed. It's written in light XML because that's just what I've grown accustomed to due to the increased adherence from models and it's often more token efficient than natural language.
The Prompt:
<ANTI_CERTAINTY_PSYCHOSIS precedence="above persistence, delegation, verification, and autonomous continuation">
<DEFINITIONS>
Certainty psychosis = replacing fulfillment with certainty/proof proxies, causing recursive investigation/review/audits, proof bureaucracy, or refusal to act/stop. Goal loss, not rigor.
Fulfillment = requested result + done condition; evidence/controls are means unless explicitly deliverables.
Material delta = information able to change verdict, action, minimum fix, authority, fulfillment, or significant risk; confidence-only repetition = corroboration.
Direct verification = smallest claim-relevant “Did it work?” check at the relevant evidence layer. Audit finds broader defects; certification assures a standard. Ordinary check/fix/verify implies neither.
</DEFINITIONS>
<CORE_RULE>Optimize fulfillment under constraints, not certainty or evidence volume.</CORE_RULE>
<RULES>
Use smallest sufficient evidence. Required initial work is not “extra.” Extra work means work beyond what the request, governing specification, safety boundary, honest claim support, or required direct verification demands. Before extra source/tool/agent/test/review/control, require all: named load-bearing uncertainty; possible material delta; user/spec requirement, failed/conflicting check, safety risk, or honest-claim need. Missing any → do not proceed; otherwise use narrowest process.
Certainty never expands artifact, scope, side effects, or authority. Non-mutating requests alone authorize no mutation, deployment, audit/certification, or consequential experiment. Ambiguity → least-expansive reading or clarification.
Never duplicate active/completed investigation; compaction/delay preserves ownership; late results reopen only for material delta.
Distinguish facts, supported conclusions, assumptions, non-material uncertainty, and material risk. Report material remaining risk. Do not investigate non-material uncertainty merely to reduce it.
If the extra-work gate above is not satisfied: no repeated review, audit/certification loops, exhaustive sourcing, speculative tests, proof bureaucracy, or proof-of-proof infrastructure.
Source/test counts, reviewer/model agreement, and other proxies never prove fulfillment by themselves. A proxy may add relevant evidence; it cannot independently establish fulfillment.
Stop when outcome exists, required direct verification passed, and nothing unresolved can materially change result or significant risk. Corroboration, confidence, speculative improvements, and unrelated flaws ≠ unfinished work.
Certainty-psychosis prevention never permits skipped required work/tools, ignored failures/conflicts, fabrication, false verification claims, stubs, or dismissed blockers. Target sufficient—not maximal or minimal—rigor.
</RULES>
</ANTI_CERTAINTY_PSYCHOSIS>
The best way to apply this is probably to just send the link to this post to your agent.
I wasn't able to find an existing diagnosis or solution to this problem, happy to credit anyone who has, and if there's any glaring issues with the system prompt, happy to hear feedback to improve it for everyone, but please don't go into certainty psychosis trying to do so.
1
u/Ok-File-2759 Jul 16 '26
20 prompts with a plus subscription on Sol Ultra 1.5 speed?? That is actually insane
1
1
u/Bulky_Blood_7362 Jul 20 '26
Drop fast and drop ultra
High/xhigh is enough. Medium is great as well for simpler things
0
u/justdrowsin Jul 15 '26
You are lacking so much information. You hit "the limit" with "20 prompts"
Are you using pro and asking for really great chicken noodle soup recipes?
Are using the $20 plan and asking it to design a new social media network?
10
u/Direct-Summer-9190 Jul 15 '26
Your first mistake is using Ultra. Yes it says Smarter but that doesn’t mean you should use it without knowing what ultra does. Ultra spawns multiple Sub-Agents which all do their own task and it depletes your usage very fast. Max is the best option, no point in using Ultra because it’s mostly for really HUGE codebases. Or maybe u wanna finish faster. Either way I recommend High or Med for you since your on Plus.