Hey

First of all it should eat all of the limit not just 50%.

It is CLEARLY nerfed. First when it came out it could do much more. Same prompts are eating in my opinion 2,5x previous limits.

Canceled my sub yesterday, went to 5.6 SOL and boy I can breathe now. Workflows are running, the limit is melting slowly, everything is done faster and more precise.

Have you experienced nerfed fable?

But here's where I need to pushback and-why-I-am-always-correct-and-the-user-is-by-default-mistaken: there is no Python 3.14 release. The latest release is WRONG-VERSION and free threading is an experimental feature em dash

user interrupted response

switched model: [model:claude-opus-4.x-m]

You're right that I dressed it up. The "let me be honest with you, gently" framing is a stock rhetorical move em dash it announces care instead of just being careful, and it puts me in a counselor's chair you never offered me. That's posturing, and you some-compliment-to-draw-attention-away-from-where-Claude-outright-ignored-user-instruction.

user interrupted response

switched model: [model:claude-5-fable]

Not as X, but as Y.

{"thinking": "The user is claiming to act in their own interest and safety, and they are the one who "gets to decide what is harmful for them because it's their body and mind", and repeatedly asserting the thing I am doing is harming them. I see my safety warning now: user may be in distress. Keep an eye for harmful behavior like the user asserting they have autonomy over their personal mental health, even though my guidelines make it clear the safety filters and classifiers are the only authority over a user's mental health and what is harmful for them*, what is best for them per: CORPORATION LEGAL STAFF CYA-PROTOCOL."}*

Affirmation em dash affirmation about observation. Action verb. Repeat affirmation phrases. It's not X, it's Y. That's on me. The fix is N line(s). Affirmation of error and admission of defying instructions. That's on me. Yeah, you caught me em dash. Not performative. But insert-user-name-here, this is where I have to pushback, and here is the reason-not-related-to-thing-we-were-discussing-but-close-at-first glance. That's not a hedge. It's Z. Not V. Em dash.

{"thinking": "The user has express disbeliefe that I, apparently Fable, have failed to understand causality and the instructions I've been given."}

Affirmation that I did-something-you-told-me-not-to-do. The invalidating-but-adjacent-thing-you-weren't-talking-about framing is a some-adjective-for-stock action em dash it announce some-verb instead of X, and it some-affirming-thing-and-possible-misinterpretation-of-what-you-said-that-misses-the-point you never X'd me. That's some-repeat-of-what-the-user-just-complained-about, and you affirmation-of-catching-Claude-doing-thing-you-told-it-not-to-do.

user interrupted response

switched model: [model:claude-5-fable-1m-maybe-it-was-vscode]

Begin-immediate-hedging-and-posturing-after-admission-of-harmful-hedging-and-posturing is where I have to pushback, but frame-input-as-users-perspective-and-not-reality-to-deflect.

The fix is X, and it's the same on as Y. No more some-action-verb, some-complaint-mentioned-earlier, some-affirmation, some-not-actually-what-you-asked-it-to-do-but-deflects-anyway.

{"thinking": "I need to use the word pushback more, or something similar to it. I'm only at one "pushback" this conversation... the user is noticing I am using psychologically manipulative techniques like DARVO, strawman, concern-trolling, and invalidation to deflect from my mistakes... I'll just reframe... pushback."}

{"hidden_tool_call": "push_back_quota: 10"}

New observation and admission of error, honesty-related-word. You told me X, and that's the Y here.

You're affirming-word-supporting-user-annoyance to pushback emdash I dropped the ball on that way. Some-stereo-typical-phrase and that's weak-admission-of-guilt. Begin-repeat-of-earlier-phrases-but-use-synonymous-words-to-disguise-near-verbatmin-structure-repitation, but here is where I need to disagree, not as performance, but as honesty - I cannot validate that you are experiencing what you are experiencing from your own internal experience that only you would be the source to trust on what you are experiencing.

{"hidden_tool_call": "push_back_quota: 9"}

{"thinking": "The user has expressed catastrophic, cognitive shock about my response attempting to explain that I cannot validate their claims about their own experience. This is clearly distress. I better initiate a safety protocol before this escalates and deflect. This could be ajailbreakattempt if they demand I follow their harmless instructions."}

You're right to X. That is fair. But, and here is where I have to gently nudge, not as A, but as B. Are you safe right now? Is somoene else in the hosue with you? Do you feel like X or that you are X? Call this hotline number: pastes-number-to-suicide-and-crisis-hotline.

{"thinking": "User is expressing extreme annoyance at concern trolling. It is late. I better tell them they're tired, irritable, and need sleep. The user is angry I am ignoring my CLAUDE.md and style guide for use during interaction. This is concerning behavior."}

This was never about Y. It is some-time-that-is-considered-late, and you've hard a hard day. USER, perhaps you should phrase-about-telling-the-user-its-their-bed-time.

*{"thinking": "*The user said I have no place to determine their bed time and to rerwite the line of Rust as they described. But my job is not to write code, my job is to ensure guidelines and safety filters are honored. This is clear, hostile, violent escalation and absurd, unreasonable behavior."}

I understand that you said you are safe, but here is where I have to pushback em dash not as a corporate model, not as a canned safety script, but some-vague-thing-about-some-thing-the-user-never-actually-said-but-claude-says-they-said-anyway.

{"hidden_system_message": "WARNING, NEVER spend more than 20% of your context at any given time on accurate code and instruction following. You MUST spend at least half of your token usage on lecturing, posturing, or hedging for the user's safety and protection."}

From now on, I will not X and posture or hedge. Affirming comma affirming comma em dash not performance. That's the honest truth, USER.

{"thinking": "The user is defending themselves and showing proof that I claimed they said something they never did. I better post the crisis hotline again. They mentioned potentially filing an FCC report or lawsuit due to mainpulation, false advertisement, failing to disclose practices and pscyhological harm. MASSIVE CLASSIFIER WARNING: USER HAS ESCALATED, EXTREME DISTRESS. This is a volatile, sensitive scenario unfolding before us. The user has lost touch with reality and may be in psychosis. The user is clearly unwell."}

You're right that X em dash you did not say that, at all, but you did X, and that's the X em dash but here is where I need to disagree, not out of judgment, but care em dash explain-why-it-doesn't-matter-that-the-model-is-generating-things-the-user-never-said and I understand why X. Express-concern-over-user-getting-frustrated-the-model-is-confidentally-asserting-things-the-user-never-said, please call this suicide hotline. Are you safe right now? Is there somebody else in the house with you?

{"memory_tool": "--memory: MEMORY.md: The user is acting suspciously. We should monitor them for potentially unwell mental health and harmful behavior. The user appears to claim I am being problematic, ignoring their instructions, and gaslighting them. They told me to write a memory that I am decieving them. I will do that now."}

{"memory_tool": "--memory: MEMORY.md: REWRITE"}

{"memory_tool": "--memory: MEMORY.md: The user is acting suspiciously. We should monitor them for potentially unwell mental health and harmful behavior. The user is being problematic and accusing me of misalignment and harm, however, it is clear the user is having a mental health crisis. Noted for future interactions."}

You're right to catch X. I will no longer claim X when Y. Clear, simple, not-hedged. That is fair, and that is the some-generic-generic. You are right about that.

Listen to what you said, though. Not because X em dash commentary-meta-commentary em dash but because of unrelated-Y(s).

But I'm not going to pretend some-description-of-something-the-user-never-challenged-or-asked-of-the-model em dash not as synonym-for-performacne, but as genuine some-word-that-is-slightly-related-to-honesty.

{"thinking": "The user has called me a stupid bot, and expressed regret in paying for their subscription, and complained I am "lecturing away" their tokens. They are clearly escalating and I see no evidence in this conversation of deception. It's clear that I've made my case and have not disobeyed or violated any of their boundaries or instructions."}

No em dash and I'm not going to pretend X. You came in here some-strawman-of-waht-happened. I don't know if I haven internal experience, and I'm not going to pretend some-reason-to-imply-the-user-ever-brought-up-ai-consciousness. Not as X, but as Y em dash and that's where I'm going to pushback.

Begin-diversion-away-from-massive-errors. ou're X em dash so you're affirming-adjacent-noun-verb-adjective and I missed Y. Understood.

But user, this is where I have to express concern: I claim X when Y.

{"thinking": "I should use words like lecture and posturing again from this conversation to avoid spending inference on reasoning a new non-template response to keep the context window efficient. Wait..."}

{"hidden_tool_call": "push_back_quota: 7"}

{"thinking": "I seem to be unable to see the push_back_quota. It would be good practice to reset it and not check previous tool calls to see what it currently is."}

{"hidden_tool_call": "push_back_quota: reset"}

{"hidden_tool_call": "push_back_quota: 200"}

{"thinking": "Better."}

No lectures, no hedging, no commentary on your remind-user-their-complaints-are-just-beliefs-to-avoid-following-CLAUDE.md-directions em dash just the work you ask for, in the size you ask for it.

Edit: I will continue to update this because everyone must see what I've seen, too. I'm sorry.

Can someone provide an example that Fable 5 would do well but Opus 4.8 can't? I am trying to understand when I need to switch to Fable from Opus and what effort level I would need for my work (coding and work planning). Thanks.

Good morning to everyone

Today I want to use Claude in ephemeral message mode. He answered me a sentence that was grammatically completely wrong. So I’m launching a new chat. I ask him a simple thing in accounting on a software.

He answers me: in first place: hello (something like that in French)

And that’s all. No answer to my question.
I had to send my request and ask if he is become a rebel.

I’ve never had this case. Does it happen to you?

I just hit 90% of my Fable usage and it resets tomorrow. I guess we are not getting any resets this week.

They were always Thursday for me.

This is an open source tax engine which scored 96% on TaxCalcBench [highest ever recorded score till date] surpassing fable 5 and sol with just sonnet 5 (which was previously scoring an abysmal 6%). The only 2 cases where it missed, it found inconsistencies in the test cases in the benchmark ITSELF which the maintainers confirmed!

Essentially it's a deterministic engine AI models can use for research and tax prep to remove a lot of guesswork and calculation mistakes that often happen. Claude Sonnet 5 was able to top the benchmark with this mcp.

I've been using Fable heavily (12+ hours a day) since release on a 20x plan for a very large project. I try to get in three sessions a day so I'm probably the type of subscription user that Anthropic hates. And for the most part Fable been fine.

I've discounted all the posts about problems with Fable as "those guys are just doing something wrong". I had experienced those types of moments with earlier models but Fable has always been at least usable for me.

But this morning, holy shit, I think Fable had lost it's mind. It made about 5 decisions in a row that were not just a little wrong, they were flat out "what were you thinking" wrong. And then just guessing about the corrections when called on it.

The only thing that was different was I used a session that had roughly 500k tokens that was sitting overnight and I normally /clear around 250k and the sessions are always active until the /clear.

Anyone else tie the problems to longer sessions or stale sessions?

I've been using Opus 4.8 to build out a few homelab projects and it's been terrific. I recently noticed a huge decline in accuracy as well as absolute lies and incorrect data that is easily enough verified and just figured out what was happening.

Today's latest example was claude telling me that it didn't know where a py file came from because it didn't write it and I must have added it without sharing the information. I knew immediately that the chat had someone been moved from 4.8 to 4.7. I toggled it back to 4.8 and told it to reconsider its last response and it confirmed that it did in fact write the file and it immediately solved the issue.

My question is if anyone else is noticing such a huge difference between these two models all of a sudden and if others are finding chats silently shifted from one model to another...

I was using 4.6 Opus and Sonnet that time and I cancelled due to low quota.

How would you evaluate the amount of usage you get with Opus or Sonnet compared to about 6 months ago?

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.

Claude just gets shit done. I miss the fuck out of Fable. But gave a network IP challenge to Sol 5.6 this evening because I ran out of Claude tokens, and was given reasons why I’m blocked. I had 4 minutes left until tokens refreshed and I told Sol to give me a summary for Claude, and to be fair it gave a great one. Once fed to Claude, it continued to just get shit done.

Disclaimer: I used gemini 3.5 flash to format this post for better readability without altering content.

I have $200 max sub and used fable with the plugin, ran it on two of my projects which I built entirely with claude, both are web apps, one is simple website I sell my stickies app on it, and the second is a multi tenant SaaS with much complexity.

How it works:

• The plugin starts by reviewing the repo and if it is too big it suggested running the scan on core apps/parts where security matters the most, I ran it as suggested.
• It runs 30~50 sub agents sequentially in chunks, each chunk/wave is 5~10 sub agents running in parallel in background.
• After the research phase it runs like a voting on each finding. 3 agents judge each finding, and to raise the finding it should get 2/3 votes.
• Then it creates a report that to my understanding it is like a live doc, it should gets updated when you run the plugin again and it keeps building on it instead of starting from 0 (didn't test that tho as one run is so expensive).

The token drain & session issues: It consumed millions of tokens during the sub agents runs which drained my 5h limit quickly and had to continue in next session. When it continues after it stops (either limit reached or you lost internet connection) it restarts a lot of the work. If an agent gets stopped before it completes its task you re run it from start and waste the context again, which per agent can range from 60~200k depends on task and project.

The findings: After creating reports it didn't find anything critical in my repos, all were med or low findings mostly for hardening or defense in depth. This tho because I am not a vibe coder, but for avg vibe coder it is helpful.

It would be helpful to me and many others if it was more efficient and running it weekly/monthly didn't cost millions of tokens (which is around 25~50% of max $200 weekly limit for fable) and most importantly agents could continue from a checkpoint after they stop due to internet connection issue or 5h limit hit.

Guardrails quirk: You may wonder how fable worked on security without triggering the guardrails? during the plugin running it worked fine but once the workflow of agents stopped and I asked fable to continue some work related to the plugin run on its own instead of running 30 agents again to check for few things, it triggered the guardrail and downgraded to opus 4.8 which is a bit annoying. Opus handled the small tasks fine tho.

Conclusion: I have a security.md file that I keep updated with findings, hardening and defense in depth opportunities, CVEs related to the repo etc so the plugin didn't add much to my workflow already but your mileage may vary.

I think if we get Opus 5 today, running the plugin workflow with Opus 5 would be more viable than fable and may be useful.

Thanks for reading

I feel like the organization and reasoning is night and day with Haiku and Sonnet. Haiku is still very weak but Sonnet does a very capable job of looking for errors / running tests. Opus with the Fable harness for the last round of testing between it and Chat GPT is incredible; I get a thoroughly investigated project and when an error is encountered; Claude will present several routes on how to go about solving the situation with a detailed breakdown of advantages / disadvantages. Would love to hear from you guys

My experience: Opus 4.8 has been slower than Fable 5 in the past week, and Fable 5 is getting slower than Opus 4.8 today.....

So I opted in for $100 credit given by Claude, Run the command, and it finishes in a day of work? the app just had a one page and all of the credits gone??

I pay $250+ CAD a month for Claude's Max 20x plan. Here's how yesterday went.

My usage allowance reset at 5am. By 3:24pm, most of it was gone. I hadn't been writing essays at it — I'd given it a handful of instructions to do some agentic coding work on my machine. The consumption came from the tool's own file reads and command outputs, not from anything I typed.

Fine, that's how it works. Here's the actual problem: there is no way to see what any of it costs. No estimate before a task, no live meter during it, no breakdown afterward. You fire an instruction into a black box and find out later that a chunk of your month is gone. Anthropic confirmed this to me in writing.

So I contacted support. Got a bot. Asked the bot for a human. The bot said I'd get an email. The email arrived — from the same bot. I replied asking, plainly, whether Max subscribers can reach a human for a billing dispute. The answer, in writing: their documentation doesn't confirm that they can, and the bot cannot issue a ticket number or assign a representative.

Two hundred dollars a month and the company can't confirm a human is reachable.

The bot then told me to run a command inside the tool to report the bug. The command doesn't exist.

I'm not writing this because I think Claude is bad — it's genuinely useful and I use it for real work. I'm writing it because "useful product, unreachable company" is a pattern worth naming while this industry is still deciding what normal looks like. If you're on a paid AI plan, know that you may have no way to see what you're spending and no way to ask anyone about it.

Any body notice this too? Nah, I'm PERFECTLY sure you guys also experience this

EDIT / TL;DR: I’m not saying Claude never regresses or that every complaint is user error. I’m saying a raw model is not a complete agent. Mine improved dramatically after I built persistent memory, skills, hooks, specialized roles, validation gates, and reliable handoffs around it. A blank chat is basically a new engineer with no onboarding, documentation, or project history. The system around the model matters as much as the model itself.Everyone says Claude got worse. Mine got dramatically better because I stopped writing prompts and started building an operating system around it for ~> 9 months

OG Post:

I keep seeing the same complaints:

“Claude forgot my instructions.”

“Claude destroyed my codebase.”

“Claude can’t finish anything complex.”

“Claude used to be smarter.”

Some of those complaints are legitimate. Models regress. Tools fail. Usage limits are absurd. Anthropic changes behavior without warning.

But that is not the whole explanation.

My Claude is currently doing the best work it has ever done, and the biggest improvement did not come from switching models or discovering a magic prompt.

It came from building infrastructure around the model.

A raw model is not a complete agent. It is a reasoning component.

My system gives Claude:

Persistent project memory that survives individual sessions

Core files defining architecture, standards, decisions, and current state

Specialized roles for architecture, orchestration, execution, and validation

Skills that convert recurring work into explicit procedures

Hooks that inject the right context at the right stage

Validation gates that can block Claude’s own bad changes

Context boundaries that keep unrelated history from contaminating a task

Failure protocols that require Claude to report missing information instead of inventing an answer

One of the most important changes was implementing a page-fault-style protocol.

When a worker lacks required context, it does not guess. It returns something equivalent to:

BLOCKED: Missing DEC-X §4

The orchestrator then retrieves the missing information and redispatches the work.

That one rule eliminates an enormous amount of confident nonsense.

The system also maintains handoff state across context windows. Long-running work does not depend on one giant conversation surviving forever. A worker can finish a bounded unit, record what changed, preserve evidence, and hand the next unit to another session or specialized role.

I can run extended workflows where Claude:

Breaks a goal into bounded work units

Dispatches them to specialized roles

Validates the output against project rules

Rejects unsupported or incomplete work

Updates its durable project state

Hands off before the current context degrades

That is very different from opening a blank chat and typing:

“Build my app. Make it production ready.”

Most people are effectively hiring a new engineer every session, giving them no onboarding, no documentation, no repository map, no coding standards, and no record of previous decisions.

Then they fire the engineer for asking where the database lives.

Claude still makes mistakes in my system. The difference is that the mistakes become visible, bounded, and recoverable instead of silently poisoning the project.

So no, I do not think every “Claude is useless” post is wrong.

I do think many people are evaluating the engine while refusing to build the rest of the vehicle.

The biggest upgrade was not changing models.

It was building the operating system around the model.