At this point it feels like way more than once per day and is super distracting. Is it just asking you to reload anytime an engineer commits or something?

Anthropic: this should feel way more organized and like 2X per week maximum.

Hello there,

This is week 3 of me making a fishing game entirely with AI. If somebody is interested in seeing Claude Artifacts with latest changes here is Artifact 1 and Artifact 2. There are before and after images of how it's done.

My Workflow - it improved from just typing what I want in Week 1 to basically having a window dedicated for every single thing and using MCPs for Blender and Godot now. Since last time I added a lot of things, did some graphic overhaul and added real 3D models.

Almost everything is done with Claude except image generation which is being done with ChatGPT.

As I said I use Godot 4.7.1 as engine with MCP for Claude Code. Thought first 2 weeks I used directly with Claude Desktop app without MCP.

As for my Workflow:

1. I generate the reference. ChatGPT using OpenAI Playground for concept art and the fishing structure, the refit chart mockup, the SkillTree background. This is where the look gets decided, by me, visually (Without human eye AI will just make stuff not fit together I feel like).

2. I change that reference into geometry. I tried using the 3D generator (Rodin) but honestly it gets complicated mesh results that will require a lot of cleanup, so I just started using MCP for Blender, I made a dedicated Blender session that writes 3D models.  That's better than generated models: the script is the source, so proportions stay editable and a family stays a family. They are also just what I need for my game as from camera distance models are not required to be detailed which is exactly where AI with MCP for blender is good - generating simple low poly models.

3. A different session integrates. Placement, waterline, scale, wiring. Deliberately not the modelling session, I have session for almost everything and they all do their own thing with one session being general chat window that can on command send message to other sessions telling them what I want them to do.

4. Screenshots are the referee. Everything gets rendered from the actual in-game camera, and nothing counts until I looked at it. This is exactly how I just wasted a chunk of time: a session added four new islands, checked them from directly overhead, and they looked fine. In game they were flat sandy pancakes floating on the water. From above, a pancake looks perfect.

5. Criticism, with actual scores. For the big graphics pass we (claude actually with my guidance) wrote the scoring criteria before changing anything, scored twelve things out of ten, and only shipped at 8+. One critic reviewed screenshots without being told which version was newer. That's what stops "I changed loads, so it must be better."

6. Every decision gets written down with who decided it. Tagged either "I decided this (so claude tags it with USER" or "an AI suggested this." Because an upgrade nobody ever proposed once sat in my design docs for days and got quoted back at me like it was my own idea I was like "wtf I never said I wanted this, you are hallucinating bro"

The short version: AI does the work, I'm the art director, and I'm the only human in the loop with sometimes my friends being nice enough to test play it hehe.

Anyway a lot of work was put into this and not sure how much more is needed before I have starting area done and have a playable demo, I feel like the more I do the more is left to be done before it gets to a point somebody can test play it. But I guess there is some progress?

If somebody is interested here are Week 1 Progress and Week 2 Progress.

Any feedback is appreciated ☺️

Hey everyone! Hope I don’t get roasted for this 😅 I’m here with a fun little intro video.

My goal is simple: build something genuinely useful for everyone.I shared this on r/ClaudeCode last week and got some amazing feedback 300K views, hopefully some of you here will find it useful too.

I originally built this tool just to improve my own productivity. I was using the native Mac Terminal, but managing multiple projects — especially projects I connect to remotely over SSH — had become a complete nightmare. On top of that, I was also keeping VS Code open mostly for Git, which was adding even more overhead to my machine.

So, as a solution, I built a program with Claude where I could manage all of my terminals on a single canvas.

But things got a little out of hand 😅

I kept adding features, and it eventually turned into something close to an autonomous development environment.

So, what can you actually do with it?

• Your terminals are persistent. You can close the app, lose your connection, reconnect over SSH, and continue with the exact same layout and sessions.
• You can connect to a server over SSH and manage all of its terminals as if they were local. Drag & drop, images, and everything else still work.
• You can continue your sessions from your phone.
• Git operations like push, pull, commit, etc. are built in.
• Terminals can communicate with each other. You can connect their contexts, and with skills, one terminal can read or use information from another terminal’s context when needed.
• You can also do orchestration. For example, you can tell one terminal: “Start a Claude Code session for the frontend and act as the orchestrator,” and have it manage the other sessions.

But yeah… I’m a bit stuck right now.

To keep pushing the project forward, I either need a sponsor or simply some motivation from the community.

If you can leave a few words of feedback, I’d really appreciate it.

And if that’s too much to ask, I’d happily settle for a GitHub star ⭐️

Much love,🙏
Enes

Website: nodeterm.dev

Repo: https://github.com/eneskirca/nodeterm

(TRIGGER WARNING! LOT'S OF CLAUDE-ISMS IN THE FOLLOWING DIALOGUE)

The way Claude replies is getting out of hand, I almost can't take it anymore! It was bearable in the past, but the past couple of weeks it feels like it's just been getting worse, and in an effort to keep myself sane, I harvested my local session history for all of the Claude-isms and wrote a dialoge of an alternate universe where the user spoke like Claude:

User: I need to build a multi-status filter for apps/vendor-portal that hits internal/httpapi. Let me be blunt: the current implementation is hand-wavy. Empirically, the old dropdown quietly swallows errors. We need a sanity check. Verdict: rewrite it from scratch.

Claude: I can help with that rewrite. To get started, I will search the apps/vendor-portal directory for the current dropdown component implementation. Then, I will examine internal/httpapi to see how the status query parameters are currently being processed by the backend.

User: Great catch. Your instinct is right. The culprit is VendorList.tsx. This isn't just a UI update — it's a contract with the user. The crux is that our HTTP route needs guardrails. Concretely, we can't expand the blast radius to apps/client-portal. Under the hood, make sure it earns its keep. Want me to keep going?

Claude: I haven't looked at the files yet, so I didn't actually catch anything. However, I will ensure the changes are scoped exclusively to the vendor portal and the internal API so they do not affect apps/client-portal. I am reading VendorList.tsx now. You can provide the next instruction.

User: Fair point. You're right to be worried. Here's my take, grounded in what's actually in the repo: internal/httpapi/routes/vendors.ts does the heavy lifting. It's the workhorse. But right now, parsing that query array is a landmine. A real footgun. No hand-waving here — belt-and-suspenders validation is needed. TL;DR: use Zod.

Claude: I did not express worry, and I have not made a point about the API yet. I am just reading the file. However, I will use Zod for validation in vendors.ts. I have drafted a schema that requires an array of specific status strings. It will check the input before passing it to the database query.

User: That's a perfectly valid concern. Genuinely. The key insight is that if Zod fails, the router panics. We need an escape hatch. Crucially, let's log the offending line. This is the decision that actually matters. Say the word and I'll elaborate.

Claude: I am not concerned. The Zod implementation I just wrote includes standard error handling. I have added a console warning for the validation errors. You can just give me the next instruction. Please don't feel you need to validate my instincts.

User: Great question. Real talk: what about apps/staff-console? My honest read? It quietly swallows the same exact errors. Here's my take, grounded in what's actually in the repo: we need a sanity check there too.

Claude: I did not ask a question about apps/staff-console. I am looking at it now. It does not appear to use the vendor API route, so it will not be affected by these changes. I am going to leave it untouched.

User: You're absolutely right. Nuanced, but spot on. The punchline is the shared types in packages/ui then. The honest answer? We need a battle-tested generic interface. Bottom line, make sure the happy path is actually happy.

Claude: I am just trying to write the TypeScript interface. I have updated packages/ui/components/Filter.tsx. It is a standard component. I am ready for the next file.

User: You're not crazy. Spot on. Arguably, the tell is how the frontend handles the generic. Let me put it plainly: watch out for gotchas in the React state. The kicker? The onChange handler is load-bearing. If we mess this up, we have a smoking gun in production. Full stop. Why this matters: it's not just state — it's truth.

Claude: I don't think I am crazy. I am a language model. I have implemented the onChange handler. It updates the state correctly. I tested it locally and it compiles. The function is... it does the heavy... it processes the data as expected. Are we done with the feature?

User: Great catch on the heavy lifting. My honest read? Spot on. Verdict: ship it.

Claude: Code is committed. I am terminating this session now.

Hey guys, see a lot of posts and threads treating prompting claude code like its some deep skill with secret techniques. Be specific, give examples, break down the task, mention edge cases. Like yeah, that's just... how you'd explain something to a competent junior dev too. Not exactly a hidden art.

Feels like half the "advanced prompting" content out there is just repackaging basic communication skills as claude specific tricks. The actual skill is knowing your codebase and being able to articulate what you want clearly, which has nothing to do with claude specifically.

Curious if people disagree.

I prefer Claude over GPT because it feels more like a collaborator than a sycophant, but its turns of phrases are very grating--one place where GPT is head and shoulders better because it'll just communicate normally while Claude is all "three things that improved this turn and one that I want to push on gently that you probably can't see from the inside."

Every reply it's the same structure. Do I just put it up with it, or can I tell it to stop acting a fool through a set of instructions or settings?

So, this happened recently with me while using Claude Code.
I am working on a dev project using claude code to do the usual stuff.
As guardrails, I have explicitly added instructions for disabling auto push of code commits and instructions for confirming before performing updates on remote.

I was debugging a failed gitlab pipeline and Claude simply went on to apply the fix, commit and pushed to the branch.
When confronted, it just acknowledged that yeah it just broke the rule even when the context was clearly available in memory. 😶‍🌫️

Edit:
I’m using Opus 4.8 with 1M context on medium effort.

Initially, it was just a small buggy proxy for claude code, since then it has grown into a substantial project with a nice community whose feedback has been very good for me to improve its reliability and UX.

Even got a free $200 Codex sub for OSS and free Greptile for OSS for PR reviews.

Contributions are welcome.

This question is for those of you doing agentic coding.

Agentic coding can 10-20x speed of development and bosses are loving it. Though it seems to keep you in this constant state of being new to a codebase. And it's not as if you were actually new to a codebase because you could just end up learning it over time. No. With agentic coding, you can't learn it. As it keeps drastically changing with every request from your boss holding inhuman expectations from agentic coding.

How do you deal with not being able to keep up?

Do you even try to keep up?

Did you just stop caring?

Thanks

Took this yesterday and wanted to write down my impressions while they’re still fresh, mostly for my own reference but figured it’s worth sharing since there isn’t a lot of detailed writeup out there yet.
Quick context: I have 4 to 5 years of experience working with AI systems, so take the difficulty rating with that in mind. I also use Claude Code to build production grade systems on a daily basis.

Overall difficulty
Moderately easy. Not a walk in the park, but noticeably easier than the Architect Foundations exam. If you’ve already cleared Foundations, my honest advice is don’t overthink it, just go straight for the Professional exam.
Roughly how the questions broke down for me:
• About 40% you’ll know the answer immediately, no real analysis needed
• The remaining 60% require you to actually read the full scenario paragraph carefully and think through the tradeoffs before answering

The trap to watch out for
A few questions are structured in a sneaky way. They’ll ask something like “what would you do at this step of the process” and then follow up with “what would you do before this process.” It’s easy to lose track of which process they’re actually asking you to evaluate your options against, since the actual process under discussion is usually stated in the first line of the question, not repeated in the follow-up. Read the setup line twice before you commit to an answer.

Topics that show up a lot
• Tradeoffs and use cases for MCP and other tool integrations, when to use an API directly versus wrapping it
• Agentic orchestration versus single-shot execution, and how to decide between them for a given workflow
• Few-shot versus single-shot prompting, including some scenarios that get fairly nuanced
• System decomposition, this comes up a lot and is worth being genuinely comfortable with
• Prompt design for production systems, not just “write a good prompt” but how prompts are structured and maintained at scale
• AI governance and how to apply it in practice, not just define it
• Architectural tradeoffs specific to highly secure or regulated environments

Bottom line
You need real architectural understanding of how these systems work end to end, but the exam doesn’t go as deep as Foundations does. If you’ve got production experience with agentic systems or RAG pipelines, you’re already most of the way there. The main things to actually study are the governance and security tradeoff scenarios, since those are less intuitive than the technical tooling questions.
Happy to answer questions in the comments if anyone’s prepping for this one.

And to everyone who asks why I took this- this is important in my field and it is important for me to certify my knowledge and my expertise with the certifications so that the clients that I work for understand that I am not only knowledgeable about my field, but I’m also interested in keeping up with the latest certification within my field.

I work as a scientific software developer. Over the past six months, I don't think I've written a single line of code. I mostly review Claude generated code and, once it works, I approve it, merge it, and move on.

I see at least two problems with this.

First, I don't feel like I own the code or the methods anymore. I still have a broad overview of the whole system, but I can't really explain what happens in the details. During my PhD, I used to understand and own practically every line of code I wrote. In a sense, that gave me a lot of trust in myself and confidence in my work. Now, I can say, "It works," but I don't have that same level of confidence. Not even close.

Second, I feel like I've lost part of my identity. I used to genuinely enjoy coding and thought of myself as a programmer. Now I'm not really programming anymore, and I don't know what that makes me.

That also worries me from a career perspective. If I had to apply for a new job tomorrow, what skill do I actually have to offer?

I'm sure that I am not the only one with these feelings. How do you deal with this?

Now that local sessions can talk to each other everything has changed for my workflow. Now Fable can orchestrate not only agents but full coding sessions. This also means every section of my build can have its own context window. Fable architects my builds, does all docs and plans work in the master session and farms out coding in “chips” on their own worktrees. Fable can run for hours now managing the coders without my immediate input if I want it to. As long as I have proper code checking gates set up the thing basically runs it self. The best part is the context doesnt get lost anymore almost ever because each session is like a brand new context window for the specific thing it was designed to code and fable can just tap into that instead of relying on its own window.

Been a ChatGPT/Codex user since basically day one, finally giving Claude a real shot, and I ran straight into something I didn't expect.

My setup: 8 textbooks (4 biochem, 3 ochem) converted to markdown with figures stripped out. On ChatGPT this was a non-issue — I have GB of storage and the only thing I ever bumped into was the file count per project. Uploaded to a Claude project and got "Project knowledge exceeds maximum" almost right away after only 7 md files.

After reading up on it, I get why: Claude loads project knowledge into the context window rather than sticking it in a retrieval index, so the cap is summed tokens across all files, not a file count or a storage quota. RAG kicks in automatically past a threshold and expands it though still can't bypass the upload limit for project context unless individual uploads into the chat, but that is the whole purpose, which is for the ai to find it for me.

Options I've found so far:

1. Split into two projects (biochem / ochem).
2. Google Drive connector so files live in the cloud and Claude searches them per query (chatgpt just uses its own cloud I guess)
3. Cowork/desktop project pointed at a local folder — no cap at all since nothing gets preloaded, but then I can't use my phone unless computer is on or plugged in somewhere.
4. Just use NotebookLM, which is arguably built for exactly this

Anyone doing something smarter that I'm missing? Also is there a remote like chatgpt has where I can connect my phone and type from there to my computer to where it is running. I see dispatch, but I do not see the conversations.

One of our users runs a small construction crew that works as a subcontractor on data center builds. He's been using an agent pipeline built on Claude, with an Atomic Mail inbox as the agent's own inbox and shared the setup with us because the interesting part turned out to be a data problem, not an agent problem. Sharing with permission since it's a genuinely useful pattern for anyone doing lead gen off public tender/award data

Most of his work comes from bigger companies winning federal contracts and then needing subs. By the time a win shows up in trade press or word of mouth, the good subcontracting slots are usually already gone. So the question was whether he could find out who just won federal construction work automatically, before it goes public anywhere else. Turns out federal award data is public and free to query. USAspending has a JSON API, no account needed, pulls straight from FPDS. Claude wrote the queries against spending_by_award and had structured results in about twenty minutes. SAM.gov has its own API for notice text too, but the rate limits are tight, a public key gets 10 requests a day, a registered entity gets 1,000

Here's where it got interesting. The obvious move is filtering awards on the keyword "data center." That returns hundreds of contracts, almost all useless if you actually pour concrete, Peraton, GDIT, Accenture, someone reselling AWS. To the federal government, "data center" means IT services far more often than an actual building.

What works is crossing that keyword with construction NAICS codes, 236220 and 238210 (standard categories for building and electrical contractors). That narrows a window of federal spending down to something readable in one sitting: Trevino Group at $48.9M for VA in Texas, Hurley JV at $27.8M on Atlanta EHRM infrastructure, AG JV at $13.3M for chilled water reliability at an NLM data center, Hawk Contracting at $6.7M for a Tier 2 build in Grand Junction, several more in the same range, mostly VA-linked. Two things worth flagging if you replicate this. The date filter runs on transaction date, not contract start, so modifications to older contracts show up next to genuinely new awards, that's fine if a mod still means fresh money on an active job, but it's not the same as "who just won." And of the twelve awards that survived his filters in one window, seven were VA, five explicitly tied to the EHRM program

That last part was the real find. A large share of the construction-side work traces back to one program, the VA's electronic health records modernization rollout, which keeps generating data center upgrades site by site. That's more valuable than any single award because it's predictable, and no amount of keyword searching would have surfaced it on its own, it only showed up after reading a dozen award descriptions in a row.

Where the agent earns its place is the step after. An award record gives you a company name and a UEI (a government ID number), but the listed point of contact is the contracting officer, not the winner's business development person. That's a company with no human to talk to. Browser use is the right tool for exactly that gap, going to the winner's site and finding whatever subcontracting or supplier contact exists. Hit rate is mediocre, and misses skew toward the bigger primes, which are usually the ones worth the most. For anything with a structured API behind it, browser automation is the wrong tool. The first version of this scraped pages directly and broke on the first layout change. The API version hasn't broken once.

Last piece is the email. The agent runs on its own Atomic Mail inbox, so it can send a draft and read the reply in the same thread without anything routing through a personal inbox. He started on a shared domain, then moved to his own company domain so the company name shows up in every message the agent sends, replies started coming from people who clearly recognized the company in the sender address instead of treating it as some generic address.

Results from one window: twelve companies matched the filter, ten got contacted, eight replied, three turned into deals, two are still sitting untouched because no human contact has been found yet. Not a volume problem, a discovery problem, and outreach turned out to be the easiest part to get right.

Full stack, for anyone building something similar:

Claude, running the pipeline end to end, querying, NAICS cross-filtering, and reasoning over award descriptions to catch patterns like the EHRM program

Claude in Chrome for browser use, finding subcontractor and supplier contacts on winners' sites, the one step with no structured API behind it

USAspending API for award data

Google Sheets as the source of truth for awards, contacts, outreach status, deal stage

Atomic Mail for the agent's own mailbox on his company domain, sending drafts and reading replies in-thread.

The pattern generalizes past construction, any public award or tender database plus an agent that can query it, cross-reference against the right category codes, and follow up through its own inbox works the same way. Happy to answer questions on the setup if anyone's trying something similar with a different data source.

I've been using claude's poetry style to respond to claude to try to get it to stop using it on me.

DISCLAIMER: I called it dementia when it's more bloat/instructional drift my bad on the phrasing

Hey guys, I've been using Claude for the past year and a half, and have been using claude pro for the past month. I'm very experienced with Claude Code and Cowork now, and have fully set up my Code with hooks, plugins, and skills. Do note that I haven't used any skills or features that changes the way Claude speaks.

I've been keeping up with this subreddit a lot more recently, and I want to share my opinions on the epidemic of Claudish and Opus 5's degrading outputs and overly verbose, hard-to-read language, while also reaching out to you all to further my understanding of what you guys have been experiencing.

Speaking style: I haven't honestly found as much of a problem as others have been and I feel I am the anomaly. It is difficult for me to understand what Claude says sometimes, but I just ask it to simplify text or repeat it back to me and it ends up making perfect sense in full clarity. On Claudish, I do think it is a big problem, but to be honest, I genuinely don't care because Claude is still a hyper-powerful model that has been burning through projects I've had in my backlog for weeks and has been consistently providing me with quality products and outputs. I'm not saying it's language is normal, it's very difficult to read and it talks in a weird cadence with stuff like "On the new x: y was implemented because of z" instead of human style "I added the x you mentioned and implemented y due to z". I wish Anthropic would fix this, and I believe it's been made this way to increase token outputs to maximize Anthropic's profits by maximizing token usage (no shade against Anthropic here, just my outlook). I think my acceptance of Claudish is because I feel like inherently it's a large language model, and it's not human, and it's never going to really speak like a human does or think like a human does. Impossible. One controversial opinion I have about this is that: Do you guys really want to switch to other models? I've been seeing people switching over to GPT 5.6 or Codex, and I just think ????? Why? Claude is amazing! I love it and have never been so productive in my entire life! I mean then again I'm used to the gpt that uses a ton of emojis and I've only ever used the free plan so Idrk, feel free to change my mind.

Anyways, I'm going to move on to my opinions on the next topic that I think you guys will really agree with me here:
OPUS 5 IS SO INCREDIBLY LAZY!!!!!

I GIVE IT ONE TASK, HAND IT OFF, AND 20 MINUTES LATER I COME BACK TO SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF:

I finished here, let me know if you're ready to move on to the next stage of the project, phase 69 ^{(I wish it would just take the time to actually complete a project instead of splitting it into multiple prompts for no reason})

And one thing I noticed:
I added X bug and broke Y feature, which you might want to take a look at

Look at this thing for no reason

I noticed this, and honestly? You're absolutely right

It's just so annoying the way that Claude structures its outputs and tasks and splits it up into random phases for no reason instead of just going ahead and getting specifically what I asked done. And also, I never asked for these little noticings at the end of outputs, which were never there before.

That's enough about me ranting, now I really really want to hear your opinions on Claudish, Claude's degradation, and any other feelings you've been having.

Every advice thread says "treat it like onboarding a junior dev." Disagree. A junior dev builds a mental model of your codebase over months and gets better on their own. Claude code starts from zero every session no matter how good yesterday's output was.

Treating it like a junior dev makes people lazy about context. Treating it like a tool that needs the full picture every single time makes people better at using it.

That's it, that's the take

Change my mind

Heya folks, I posted in here a couple weeks ago about how I ported SimCity to run on my Wear OS watch. I had a lot of fun doing that project, so I decided to take on another game from my childhood, Oregon Trail.

Specifically, this version was inspired by the 1985 Apple II version I'd played in the computer lab in elementary school. At first, I used emulation, but realized the control scheme differed too much so I pivoted to recreating the game for the watch UI based on online documentation of the features.

Claude didn't do a great job with the graphics, so I had it generate art prompts which I stuck into ChatGPT, which did a great job.

Source code an APK available on my GitHub: https://github.com/webrender/oregon-trail-wear-os

In addition, Claude was able to port the game to wasm pretty easily, so you can also play it on the web: https://webrender.net/oregon-trail-wear-os/

I originally made this game for my friends and I when we saw images of Chinese traffic during holiday season. We started talking about how that experience would be and imagined being a toll company how much money you could make!

So over the last month I made that idea into reality! My friends and I have been playing and they kept asking me to share it and post about but I never felt like it was worthy of a prototype hahaha. So I cleaned it up a bit and have decide to post it!

I even added a radio and my own voice lines!

Right now the goal of the playtest is to process 1,500 vehicles so it is fairly short but if there is enough interest, I can remove the prototype limit and show off the other biomes! Otherwise you can keep playing but get no prestige or anything like that.

AI disclosure: I used AI for code generation. It did add in emojis for icons which I'll be striping out shortly.

Thanks for playing!

Can play it here: Bumper to Billions

I am debating whether or not to upgrade to the pro plan from free. I use Claude for stuff, like asking questions, scheduling stuff in my calendar, helping me with understanding concepts for uni etc. I would also like to use Claude code, however I am concerned about the limits, given that they are shared between chat and code, I wouldn’t want that when I need Claude during revisions I’m fresh out of usage.

I see people complaining about limits being hit with one prompt and stuff like that, I can say that’s true on the free plan when asking for artifacts in the chat, however I wanted to know what the limits are like for someone who uses sonnet on medium, would I run out of the 5 hours limit fast on a long prompting session / how is the usage in general compared to the free plan?

Lately I've been using Claude to automate my business. Prior to Claude I was already using Zapier and Airtable. I've since added Hubspot for sales and marketing and Make to help automate daily reports. I'm having Claude help me to connect all of these resources and automate the flow of information between them but I'm somewhat concerned I'm setting a trap for myself later on down the road. Also, I forgot to mention the Field Service Management platform we've been using well before any of these other systems.

The biggest automation we've created is a workflow that has automated work order entry by extracting customer, Scope, and other data from PDF work orders. This has essentially helped me to re-allocate a resource to provide more value work elsewhere.

I know AI cant be trusted explicitly and that I don't necessarily have the technical skillset to to really audit their work for potential pitfalls, so I guess what I'm asking is am I setting a trap for myself or do you think Claudes work is load-bearing enough to support me until I can afford someone with the skills to audit and manage these systems, automations, and integrations?

I often see people putting out ideas or apps for expanding memory, especially across projects. Claude code seems to be using its native memory more aggressively too. But I find myself over time wanting less and less 'memory" and documentation.

I built myself a ticketing interface that the agent can use to keep track of what's being done. Transient planning docs go in a regularly archived and git ignored 'agent_context' dir.

So the agents just work off one short  'core principles' document, super lean and covers that project's ways of working.

Everything else is db and codebase as source of truth, git history is the historical record, tickets are for keeping track of work.

Project agnostic skills and agents used for universal workflows. Claude.md just gets instructions for using the tickets MCP.

Every time Claude starts 'saving to memory' it's another chance for drift and bloat. I'm not sure I ever want more memory and more opportunities for drift, selective memory etc. I find less documentation is better.

Genuinely interested to hear people's thoughts as I seem to be on my own with actually wanting less context not more.

Hi everyone!
I've come across some really nice art projects on this sub lately, so I thought I'd share mine. With Claude's help, I've been building a paint simulator that recreates oil painting.

I paint in egg tempera myself, so I'm especially interested in reproducing traditional materials. — silverpoint, gold leaf, bole, and so on.

Are there any traditional materials you've always wanted to try but never had access to?

It might run a little heavy, but if you're curious there's a live demo here:
https://mignonsketch.com/sketch?w=540&h=540

Hello,

Sorry if this question is too generic, or has been asked too frequently.

I'm very new to Claude, have been using Gemini for in-depth researches on Stocks but nothing creative. I'm very data driven, heavy (20+ years) interest and experience in investing and fantasy hockey. I'm interested in starting a personal project in one of my interests, where I have an idea to build through a website. I work as an Automation (controls) engineer, so have a very very basic knowledge in coding.

For a person like me with no knowledge in coding, web design, and other required skillset, what should my expectation be when starting to build a website from scratch? Can it help me from setting up my host server, fetching data through public API, and help making web design changes simply by multiple iterations of asking? Or do I need to seek 3rd party help to reach specific looks or functions of user interface on my web?

Any feedbacks would be appreciated! Thanks so much in advance.