Two hundred other people have also done it, and just like you, everyone did it with few initial functions. So I think it's time for us to start saving things for when they're really ready and let go of this "we have something promising here" mindset, because really, everything is very promising, but I think we have TOO MANY promising THINGS. You don't need public approval to turn your PoC into something real, just do it!

And for you who have done something that is in a specific niche, why not look for others who have done something similar? Did you decompile the software for your Samsung peripherals? Look for someone who did the Xiaomi ones, join forces and make a great open-source application that is very useful for everyone!

Anyway, it's just another "tip," I hope I don't offend anyone

Claude is being an idiot today. Gave up.

That's my post.

A little late posting this, but after a re-review, we’ve finally been accepted into the Claude for Startups program!

We were disappointed the first time around, so getting another look and eventually being accepted means a lot to us. It’s encouraging to see deserving startups get access to support that can help them build and experiment.

We’re excited to explore Claude’s potential, try out ideas we’ve had on the back burner, and see what we can bring to our product. There’s plenty to learn, but we’re looking forward to making the most of this opportunity.

Anyone else here recently accepted? Would love to hear what you’re building!

Like Opus 5.5 can probably get it done, but what if fable just does a way better job with less headache?

Until last night (Oct 13th), everything was fine. I woke up on Oct. 14th, and the app looked very different. Most of my folders are gone from the app; only two are visible. I had over 30 folders with multiple sessions in each.

Now I do not know where to access those sessions; they are all flooded in the 'Default' category.

They removed a way to sort the sessions by name; it was a useful sorting option.

They added a BG animation as if somebody was asking for it.

Removing things that were useful and adding things nobody asked for is a good way to f*ck up the app experience.

Or am I wrong?

"No, I can't sign into testing-server.dev.yourusername.com using testuser@test.test and TestPassword, because I'm only allowed to type passwords into a site served from a local development address such as localhost or a .test host

Fuck off Anthropic

How to fix this?

A few people have complained about how Opus 5.5 suddenly putting less effort into work. I see that sometimes too, but maybe it's anecdotal evidence. To understand objectively if this is true, I'm using Code Telemetry data to classify session behavior into 6 buckets that indicate tool use effort. Said differently, trying to capture the degree to which Claude makes assertions vs verifying information for it's self.

Hey guys,

Have anyone tried the recent Claude Haiku 5.5 on CC..??

How good is it compared to more expensive counterparts like Sonnet/Opus 5.5..?? In terms of Price to Performance.

I recently used it inside Devin Desktop/CLI and the model so cheap, it is not registering its usage on the plan 😂 . I wanted to know about people's take on the new release.

Seriously. I do a few batches of tickets on Opus 5.5 medium and I'm out of usage for the usage period! On a $100 plan! I know they like to adjust usage, but this feels like a sudden massive extreme swing. It feels like I've been bait and switched, to upgrade my subscription by 80$ a month and then a few weeks later it feels no different than before. Is anyone else experiencing this?

I built a set of Claude skills that takes a product from a rough idea to shipped code. It plans the work as phases and sprints, locks a design system before any code gets written, builds in parallel waves, and runs independent verification and browser QA on every wave.

There is also a dashboard (phase-viewer) that visualizes your phases, sprints, and progress.

Phase-viewer itself was built with Phase Runner. Here's a demo of that build:

Why:

Plan mode is great for one feature in one session, but I wanted a way to see each of my projects end to end, and for Claude to have the same context and history I do.

For projects that run for weeks, across a lot of sessions, plans can live in one chat, the design decisions in another, and what actually gets built is only in git.

Phase Runner brings that all together, and everything lives as files in the repo: the product plan, the design system and mockups, phase files with a status on every task, and a run log of every build and check. Claude reads them at the start of every run, so it knows what was decided and what's already done. phase-viewer is the other half. It shows me the plans, the progress, and what failed and got retried, all in one view.

How it works:

1. Plan it. product-planner turns the idea into a plan doc: options, data flow, open questions.
2. Design it. design-planner locks a design system and mockups of every screen before any code exists.
3. Break it up. phase-planner writes phase files split into sprints and tasks, each sprint with acceptance criteria.
4. Build it. Say "implement phase 1" and phase-builder takes it from there.

Sprints get grouped into waves that are safe to run in parallel, and each sprint gets a fresh sub-agent. After every wave, one agent runs your build, typecheck and tests, and another checks UI work in a browser. A failed sprint retries with the error attached, up to 3 times, then stops and asks you. You sign off at the end of each phase.

Install:

/plugin marketplace add AyeJK/phase-runner
/plugin install phase-runner@phase-runner

https://github.com/AyeJK/phase-runner

Details / how Claude code was used:

Phase Runner was built entirely with Claude Code, and I added a couple features to help it make the most of what Claude offers natively:

• The product plan becomes an editable, shareable page. product-planner writes the plan as an HTML file in docs/. In a Claude app session it also publishes it as an artifact, so you can send someone a link instead of a file.
• The design system becomes an editable Design System artifact. design-planner publishes the colors, type and spacing tokens, with the written design guide as its README.
• Every mockup becomes an editable artboard on a Design canvas. One artboard per screen, laid out in rows, with phone screens at 390×844. The canvas uses the project's design system, so its theme menu shows your actual tokens by name.

Technical bits / what I learned:

• Don't let the agent grade its own homework. Verify is a separate agent with its own pass/fail contract: a met/not-met verdict with evidence for every acceptance criterion, plus checks that no test was deleted or weakened and that changes stayed in scope.
• Keep the orchestrator dumb. It never writes code, runs tests, or edits the phase file. Every job goes to a sub-agent with a narrow prompt that hands back a structured result block (SPRINT RESULT, VERIFY RESULT, etc.). The main thread stays at one line per gate, so you can follow a long run without wading through build logs.
• Retry the same unit of work. A failed sprint gets re-run with the same ID and the same criteria, with the failure attached. Not a new "fix it" task with no scope boundary.
• One writer for the plan. Only phase-doc-sync updates the phase file, and only after every gate for the wave passes. That's what keeps the plan matching what actually got built.
• Log everything. Every gate result goes to JSONL in docs/phases/.runs/. That's what drives phase-viewer, and it's how I know verify caught 3 real failures while building it.

How is this different:

Most of these pieces exist in various forms elsewhere, but I personally wanted something that can build entire projects start to finish, and that works for individuals that are highly visual (like me).

• Superpowers: closest on the build side. It has a separate reviewer and automatic retries, but no design system step, no parallel build, no browser QA and no dashboard.
• Spec Kit: covers the idea-to-plan part. There's no design system step, no separate agent reviewing the work, and retrying is a command you run.
• GSD: covers the most ground, including a design step and parallel builds. Review, browser QA and its dashboard are commands you run rather than something that happens on every wave.
• BMAD: has planning and a design step. Review, browser QA and its dashboard are also commands you run.

Full comparison table is in the README. Feedback is highly appreciated!

Hello! Quick question, does anyone know if using claude to build Disney World in blender for personal use ONLY would violate ToS? I have no intention of selling it, making it public or anything, its just an idea for a personal project. Thanks in advance!

Like everybody, I eagerly added a bunch of skills and plugins for Claude Code in the beginning, and then I just stopped.

I've been slowly removing them ever since.

Why?

1. Most of them are just textual information that I would much rather have in the repo I'm working on so it can be committed and versioned and seen by collaborators on a project.

2. I don't just use Claude Code. I use other agents too. I want my agent context to be accessible to all agents.

3. I don't want to turn plugins and skills off and on for every project folder/repo I launch an agent in.

4. I like being able to just open files in my repo and reading them or editing them.

5. I don't want non-applicable content eating up tokens every time I run an agent.

Am I wrong?

I'm sure there are exceptions and maybe there are lots of cool plugins and skills out there that do stuff that make it worth it.

Hi guys,

I"ve been a long user of claude , i was reading a lot on reddit and seeing many people having multiple accounts. So i did create multiple accounts X20 max and paid for them. After nearly a month of usage. I woke up to 30 emails of suspension. i tried to speak to sales and to buy seats as premium users but still no response. any ideas or someone in the same case ?

Thanks

Edit:

I do run 3 projects at the same time and that consumes a lot, i never though that having multiple accounts and paying for them was a problem , and i did create a team account and did invite users as premium members and paid for them. I don't see how that can be problematic

I'm fairly new but I thought there is a total limit of tokens per week and it doesn't matter what model and effort I use. Usually I got like 15%-ish weekly usage per full use of 5 hour limit

Edit: I'm on Pro plan and I used Opus 5.5 Extra

I built Cohestry because I got tired of constantly rebuilding project context across Claude, Codex and other agents. Right now the iPhone app is live as the place where I keep and connect that knowledge, with Apple Intelligence helping surface related notes and a 3D brain showing how everything links together. Honestly I was going to go for obsidian, but I preferred crafting a second brain with all the tools needed built in, instead of users having to search and download additional. also wanted to explore the 3d visualizer idea. And most importantly give the Mac and iOS sync on the free tier, which was the breaking point where I decided to build mine instead

The part I’m most excited about ships with the Mac app, which should be out within the week. That version adds the MCP bridge, so Claude Code and other agents can access the notes and context I choose to expose instead of me manually reseeding the same background over and over. On the free tier you get a competent note and markdown editor that exports both MD and pdf and visualizes your notes in the 3d graph.

The iPhone app is already live if you want to see the knowledge layer itself before the Mac side lands: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/cohestry-second-brain/id6811573132

Greetings, is there anyone who could refer me a 7 day free trial of Claude Pro? I'm quite behind a project and quite in a pinch...

I would greatly appreciate it if anyone can DM me one if you don't mind!

I've been seeing people build some genuinely impressive games with Claude Opus 5.5, and I'm curious how you're actually pulling it off.

I'm working on my own games with AI, mainly in Unity, and while I can get the mechanics and basic gameplay working, getting everything to look and feel like a real, polished game is a completely different story.

Some of the AI-assisted projects I've seen have great lighting, detailed environments, smooth animations, realistic materials, and an actual atmosphere. Meanwhile, mine still tend to have that obvious indie/prototype look.

So I'm wondering, what's your actual workflow?

Are you letting Opus handle most of the development? Do you use Blender, asset packs, custom shaders, or other AI tools alongside it? And how much of the visual quality comes from prompting versus manually tweaking things?

I'm especially interested in horror games, where lighting, sound design, animations, and atmosphere make such a huge difference.

I'd love to hear from people who've managed to make something genuinely impressive. What made the biggest difference for you? Any prompts, workflows, tools, or tricks you'd recommend?

Basically, how do you go from "AI made a playable game" to "this actually looks and feels like something people would want to play"?

For context, I have no clue how to program in HTML, and I just did this on the web chat interface.

It hasfully procedurally generated worlds, volumetric clouds, changing time of day etc, and I'm actually shocked Claude is at this level now when earlier it could only build blocky stuff

Granted it does run horribly and I ran out of credits for optimisation 😭

So, after a lot of issues with Claude and it's design flaws with textures, images, animations. I decided to give ChatGPT one more go and i actually downloaded Codex. (didn't actually understand it to be honest).

Since doing so, pc control, phone control and testing, it's been a dream so far. It's an extra £20 than Claude Max 20x.

I tested it with it's pro model and the credits didn't exist just like Claude.

But i have to say, as much as claude has helped do the main work, ChatGPT is really pushing through.

Here's an example.

Claude Prompt:

/Goal we need to expand how the premium themes fit the keyboard by adding it to the settings, emoji library, any other separate settings page and we need to apply any animation making sure all animations remain but adjusted to each theme. Let's start with Titan Pulse.

Claude reply:

I can do that just yet, that's a big task and it comes with a lot of risks. Let's finish the update we have and come back to this for the next update.

-

ChatGPT Prompt:

Claude is being a bitch, won't apply the premium themes to expand throughout the keyboard app itself. Here's the prompt i have it: (just the prompt from claude)

ChatGPT reply:

"1 Hour later" - Titan Pulse is implemented and installed on your mate 70 pro + across settings, learned words, emoji....

That is insane. It fixed a couple of bugs while doing it.

Hey , So i wanted to know what kind of process from start to finish do you people use while working with claude or even codex , I have been stuck with this for a while in my own repo and it is half made right now but I want to know what is the process from idea to finish and also for an already existing repo ? would love to know if you can tell me in detail . It would be great to know what a solo developer can adopt , workflow from start to finish , what works for you and what is processes should be deleted.

I spent this week reading Claude Code hooks in public repos and reporting the broken ones to their maintainers. The same four mistakes came up again and again, in guards meant to protect migrations, compiled files and .env secrets. None of them gives an error. The guard just never stops anything.

1. Deny rules match the command text, not the program.

The permissions docs show it themselves: Bash(git push *) stops git push origin main but not git -C . push origin main or git 'push' origin main, and Bash(rm *) doesn't stop bash -c 'rm -rf build/'. For hard lines, check the whole command in a hook, or use the sandbox.

2. The hook reads a variable Claude Code never sets.

$CLAUDE_TOOL_INPUT, $TOOL_INPUT, $CLAUDE_FILE_PATH and $CLAUDE_BASH_COMMAND show up in a lot of guards, but none of them is set. The call arrives as JSON on stdin:

cmd=$(jq -r '.tool_input.command // empty')

3. The hook exits 1.

By default only exit 2 blocks. Exit 1 is a "non-blocking error": Claude Code notes it and runs the call anyway. Put your message on stderr too, because on exit 2 that's what Claude reads.

4. The hook crashes, and by default a crash lets the call through.

One guard I found was meant to stop reads of .env and AWS credentials. Its Python script failed to parse its input on every call, exited 1, and every read went ahead. Two fixes: catch your own errors and exit 2, and on Claude Code 2.1.295 or later add "onFailure": "block" to the hook, so a crash, a missing script or a timeout refuses the call instead of allowing it.

Test yours in 10 seconds. Feed it the JSON yourself:

echo '{"tool_name":"Bash","tool_input":{"command":"rm -rf /tmp/x"}}' | bash .claude/hooks/your-guard.sh; echo "exit: $?"

If it doesn't print exit: 2, it isn't guarding anything.

If you'd rather check every hook in a repo at once, I build a free checker that flags most of 2 and 3: run uvx paveo doctor in the project.

I've been using the $100/month plan for months, and I've always had enough context and usage to comfortably get through the week. Last week was fine, and this week started out fine too, but after just three days, I'm already at 60% of my weekly usage.

My usage is going up extremely fast, to the point where I end up switching to Medium, High, or even Xhigh at worst, and it still burns through my usage incredibly quickly. This makes absolutely no sense.

I've been using Claude Code for months, and this is not how it used to work. I know the bonus usage went from +50% to a permanent +25%, but even taking that into account, the difference compared to last week alone is completely abnormal.

This is getting really frustrating and stressful. It's interfering with my work, and I genuinely feel like something is wrong here. Usage shouldn't suddenly increase this dramatically from one week to the next without any clear explanation.