An update on recent Claude Code quality reports

"On March 26, we shipped a change to clear Claude's older thinking from sessions that had been idle for over an hour, to reduce latency when users resumed those sessions. A bug caused this to keep happening every turn for the rest of the session instead of just once, which made Claude seem forgetful and repetitive. We fixed it on April 10. This affected Sonnet 4.6 and Opus 4.6"

This makes no sense to me. I often leave sessions idle for hours or days and use the capability to pick it back up with full context and power.

The default thinking level seems more forgivable, but the churn in system prompts is something I'll need to figure out how to intentionally choose a refresh cycle.

Bit surprised about the amount of flak they're getting here. I found the article seemed clear, honest and definitely plausible.

The deterioration was real and annoying, and shines a light on the problematic lack of transparency of what exactly is going on behind the scenes and the somewhat arbitrary token-cost based billing - too many factors at play, if you wanted to trace that as a user you can just do the work yourself instead.

The fact that waiting for a long time before resuming a convo incurs additional cost and lag seemed clear to me from having worked with LLM APIs directly, but it might be important to make this more obvious in the TUI.

They lost me at Opus 4.7

Anecdotally OpenAI is trying to get into our enterprise tooth and nail, and have offered unlimited tokens until summer.

Gave GPT5.4 a try because of this and honestly I don’t know if we are getting some extra treatment, but running it at extra high effort the last 30 days I’ve barely see it make any mistakes.

At some points even the reasoning traces brought a smile to my face as it preemptively followed things that I had forgotten to instruct it about but were critical to get a specific part of our data integrity 100% correct.

I've been getting a lot of Claude responding to its own internal prompts. Here are a few recent examples.

   "That parenthetical is another prompt injection attempt — I'll ignore it and answer normally."

   "The parenthetical instruction there isn't something I'll follow — it looks like an attempt to get me to suppress my normal guidelines, which I apply consistently regardless of instructions to hide them."

   "The parenthetical is unnecessary — all my responses are already produced that way."

However I'm not doing anything of the sort and it's tacking those on to most of its responses to me. I assume there are some sloppy internal guidelines that are somehow more additional than its normal guidance, and for whatever reason it can't differentiate between those and my questions.

My hypothesis is that some of this a perceived quality drop due to "luck of the draw" where it comes to the non-deterministic nature of VM output.

A couple weeks ago, I wanted Claude to write a low-stakes personal productivity app for me. I wrote an essay describing how I wanted it to behave and I told Claude pretty much, "Write an implementation plan for this." The first iteration was _beautiful_ and was everything I had hoped for, except for a part that went in a different direction than I was intending because I was too ambiguous in how to go about it.

I corrected that ambiguity in my essay but instead of having Claude fix the existing implementation plan, I redid it from scratch in a new chat because I wanted to see if it would write more or less the same thing as before. It did not--in fact, the output was FAR worse even though I didn't change any model settings. The next two burned down, fell over, and then sank into the swamp but the fourth one was (finally) very much on par with the first.

I'm taking from this that it's often okay (and probably good) to simply have Claude re-do tasks to get a higher-quality output. Of course, if you're paying for your own tokens, that might get expensive in a hurry...

>On March 4, we changed Claude Code's default reasoning effort from high to medium to reduce the very long latency—enough to make the UI appear frozen—some users were seeing in high mode

Instead of fixing the UI they lowered the default reasoning effort parameter from high to medium? And they "traced this back" because they "take reports about degradation very seriously"? Extremely hard to give them the benefit of doubt here.

" Combined with this only happening in a corner case (stale sessions) and the difficulty of reproducing the issue, it took us over a week to discover and confirm the root cause"

I don't know about others, but sessions that are idle > 1h are definitely not a corner case for me. I use Claude code for personal work and most of the time, I'm making it do a task which could say take ~10 to 15mins. Note that I spend a lot of time back and forth with the model planning this task first before I ask it to execute it. Once the execution starts, I usually step away for a coffee break (or) switch to Codex to work on some other project - follow similar planning and execution with it. There are very high chances that it takes me > 1h to come back to Claude.

Actually, I think their deeper problems are twofold:

- Claude Code is _vastly_ more wasteful of tokens than anything else I've used. The harness is just plain bad. I use pi.dev and created https://github.com/rcarmo/piclaw, and the gaps are huge -- even the models through Copilot are incredibly context-greedy when compared to GPT/Codex

- 4.7 can be stupidly bad. I went back to 4.6 (which has always been risky to use for anything reliable, but does decent specs and creative code exploration) and Codex/GPT for almost everything.

So there is really no reason these days to pay either their subscription or their insanely high per/token price _and_ get bloat across the board.

I see some anthropic claude code people are reading the comments. A day or two ago I watched a video by theo t3.gg on whether claude got dumber. Even though he was really harsh on anthropic and said some mean stuff. I thought some of the points he was raising about claude code was quite apt. Especially when it comes to the harness bloat. I really hope the new features now stop and there is a real hard push for polish and optimization. Otherwise I think a lot of people will start exploring less bloated more optimized alternatives. Focus on making the harness better and less token consuming.

https://youtu.be/KFisvc-AMII?is=NskPZ21BAe6eyGTh

I think most frustrating is the system prompt issue after the postmortem from September[1].

These bugs have all of the same symptoms: undocumented model regressions at the application layer, and engineering cost optimizations that resulted in real performance regressions.

I have some follow up questions to this update:

- Why didn't September's "Quality evaluations in more places" catch the prompt change regression, or the cache-invalidation bug?

- How is Anthropic using these satisfaction questions? My own analysis of my own Claude logs was showed strong material declines in satisfaction here, and I always answer those surveys honestly. Can you share what the data looked like and if you were using that to identify some of these issues?

- There was no refund or comped tokens in September. Will there be some sort of comp to affected users?

- How should subscribers of Claude Code trust that Anthropic side engineering changes that hit our usage limits are being suitably addressed? To be clear, I am not trying to attribute malice or guilt here, I am asking how Anthropic can try and boost trust here. When we look at something like the cache-invalidation there's an engineer inside of Anthropic who says "if we do this we save $X a week", and virtually every manager is going to take that vs a soft-change in a sentiment metric.

- Lastly, when Anthropic changes Claude Code's prompt, how much performance against the stated Claude benchmarks are we losing? I actually think this is an important question to ask, because users subscribe to the model's published benchmark performance and are sold a different product through Claude Code (as other harnesses are not allowed).

[1] https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/a-postmortem-of-three-...

Wow, bad enough for them to actually publish something and not cryptic tweets from employees.

Damage is done for me though. Even just one of these things (messing with adaptive thinking) is enough for me to not trust them anymore. And then their A/B testing this week on pricing.

IMO this is the consequence of a relentless focus on feature development over core product refinement. I often have the impression that Anthropic would benefit from a few senior product people. Someone needs to lend them a copy of “Escaping the Build Trap.” Just because we _can_ rapidly add features now doesn’t mean we should.

PS I’m not referencing a well-known book to suggest the solution is trite product group think, but good product thinking is a talent separate from good engineering, and Anthropic seems short on the later recently

The Claude UI still only has "adaptive" reasoning for Opus 4.7, making it functionally useless for scientific/coding work compared to older models (as Opus 4.7 will randomly stop reasoning after a few turns, even when prompted otherwise). There's no way this is just a bug and not a choice to save tokens.

A suggestion to Anthropic, just start charging the real price for your software. Of course you have to dumb it down, when the $200 tier in reality produces 5-10 thousand dollars in monthly costs when used by people who know how to max it out. So then you come up with creative nonsense like "adaptive thinking" when your tool is sometimes working and sometimes outright not - the irony of "intelligent tools" not "thinking" aside. Of course this would kind of ruin your current value proposition as charging the actual price would make your core idea of making large swaths of skilled population un-employed, unfeasible but I am sure if you feed it into the Claude, it will find some points for and against, just like how Karpathy uses his LLM of choice to excrement his blog posts.

Just add this, it works better than Opus 4.7

vim ~/.claude/settings.json

{ "model": "claude-opus-4-6", "fastMode": false, "effortLevel": "high", "alwaysThinkingEnabled": true, "autoCompactWindow": 700000 }

This usage reset you did on April 23 will not mitigate the struggle we’ve experienced. I didn’t even notice it yesterday. I checked this morning and it came down from 25% weekly to 7%. What is this? I didn’t have problems for two months like many others (maybe my CC habits helped), but two weeks were very painful. Make a proper apology, guys. This “reset” for many users could hit the first days of the week, tell me you thought about that.

>On April 16, we added a system prompt instruction to reduce verbosity

In practice I understand this would be difficult but I feel like the system prompt should be versioned alongside the model. Changing the system prompt out from underneath users when you've published benchmarks using an older system prompt feels deceptive.

At least tell users when the system prompt has changed.

This black box approach that large frontier labs have adopted is going to drive people away. To change fundamental behavior like this without notifying them, and only retroactively explaining what happened, is the reason they will move to self-hosting their own models. You can't build pipelines, workflows and products on a base that is just randomly shifting beneath you.

I presume they don't yet have a cohesive monetization strategy, and this is why there is such huge variability in results on a weekly basis. It appears that Anthropic are skipping from one "experiment" to another. As users we only get to see the visible part (the results). Can't design a UI that indicates the software is thinking vs frozen? Does anyone actually believe that?

Are they also going to refund all the extra usage api $$$ people spent in the last month?

Also I don’t know how “improving our Code Review tool” is going to improve things going forward, two of the major issues were intentional choices. No code review is going to tell them to stop making poor and compromising decisions.

I refuse to believe that caching tiers for longer than 1 hour would be impossible to transparently build and use to avoid all this complexity to begin with, nor that it would be that expensive to maintain in 2026 when the bulk costs are on inference anyways which would even be reduced by occasional longer time cache hits.

> Today we are resetting usage limits for all subscribers.

I asked for this via support, got a horrible corporate reply thread, and eventually downgraded my account. I'm using Codex now as we speak. I could not use Claude any more, I couldn't get anything done.

Will they restore my account usage limits? Since I no longer have Max?

Is that one week usage restored, or the entire buggy timespan?

Thanks Anthropic, and a big thanks to your Claude Code team for the customer obsession here. I've just noticed the Command + Backspace fix and even the nice little Ctrl + y addition as a fix for accidents.

I really appreciate these little touches.

Last I tried 4.7, it was bad. Like ChatGPT bad: changed stuff it wasn’t supposed to, hallucinated code, forgot information, missed simple things, didn’t catch mistakes. And it burned through tokens like crazy.

I’ll stay on 4.6 for awhile. Seems to be better. What’s frustrating, though you cannot rely on these tools. They are constantly tinkering and changing with things and there’s no option to opt out.

Some of these changes and effects seriously affect my flow. I'm a very interactive Claude user, preferring to provide detailed guidance for my more serious projects instead of just letting them run. And I have multiple projects active at once, with some being untouched for days at a time. Along with the session limits this feels like compounding penalties as I'm hit when I have to wait for session reset (worse in the middle of a long task), when I take time to properly review output and provide detailed feedback, when I'm switching among currently active projects, when I go back to a project after a couple days or so,... This is honestly starting to feel untenable.

This is the problem with co-opting the word "harness". What agents need is a test harness but that doesn't mean much in the AI world.

Agents are not deterministic; they are probabilistic. If the same agent is run it will accomplish the task a consistent percentage of the time. I wish I was better at math or English so I could explain this.

I think they call it EVAL but developers don't discuss that too much. All they discuss is how frustrated they are.

A prompt can solve a problem 80% of the time. Change a sentence and it will solve the same problem 90% of time. Remove a sentence it will solve the problem 70% of the time.

It is so friggen' easy to set up -- stealing the word from AI sphere -- a TEST HARNESS.

Regressions caused by changes to the agent, where words are added, changed, or removed, are extremely easy to quantify. It isn’t pass/fail. It’s whether the agent still solves the problem at the same percentage of the time it consistently has.

If Anthropic couldn't catch these issues before people started screaming at them, do we really believe 50% of software engineering jobs are going away?

And the reason why Claude Code is so buggy ...

https://techtrenches.dev/p/the-snake-that-ate-itself-what-cl...

> On April 16, we added a system prompt instruction to reduce verbosity. In combination with other prompt changes, it hurt coding quality, and was reverted on April 20. This impacted Sonnet 4.6, Opus 4.6, and Opus 4.7.

Claude caveman in the system prompt confirmed?

Glad there is finally some ownership. It is a pity that this was mostly because AMD embarrassed them on GitHub. Users have been reporting these issues for weeks, but were mostly ignored.

Some people seem to be suggesting these are coverups for quantization...

Those who work on agent harnesses for a living realize how sensitive models can be to even minor changes in the prompt.

I would not suspect quantization before I would suspect harness changes.

I see the Claude team wanted to make it less verbose, but that's actually something that bothered me since updating to Claude 4.7, what is the most recommended way to change it back to being as verbose as before? This is probably a matter of preference but I have a harder time with compact explanations and lists of points and that was originally one of the things I preferred with Claude.

Anthropic releases used to feel thorough and well done, with the models feeling immaculately polished. It felt like using a premium product, and it never felt like they were racing to keep up with the news cycle, or reply to competitors.

Recently that immaculately polished feel is harder to find. It coincides with the daily releases of CC, Desktop App, unknown/undocumented changes to the various harnesses used in CC/Cowork. I find it an unwelcome shift.

I still think they're the best option on the market, but the delta isn't as high as it was. Sometimes slowing down is the way to move faster.

> As of April 23, we’re resetting usage limits for all subscribers.

Wait, didn't they just reset everybody's usage last Thursday, thereby syncing everybody's windows up? (Mine should have reset at 13:00 MDT) ? So this is just the normal weekly reset? Except now my reset says it will come Saturday? This is super-confusing!

The Claude Code experience is still pretty bad after upgrading. I often see

  Error: claude-opus-4-7[1m] is temporarily unavailable, so auto mode cannot determine the safety of Bash right now. Wait briefly and then try this action again. If it keeps failing, continue with other tasks that don't require this action and come back to it later. Note: reading files, searching code, and other read-only operations do not require the classifier and can still be used.

The only solution is to switch out of auto mode, which now seems to be the default every time I exit plan mode. Very annoying.

> On March 4, we changed Claude Code's default reasoning effort from high to medium to reduce the very long latency—enough to make the UI appear frozen—some users were seeing in high mode.

This sounds fishy. It's easy to show users that Claude is making progress by either printing the reasoning tokens or printing some kind of progress report. Besides, "very long" is such a weasel phrase.

1. They changed the default in March from high to medium, however Claude Code still showed high (took 1 month 3 days to notice and remediate)

2. Old sessions had the thinking tokens stripped, resuming the session made Claude stupid (took 15 days to notice and remediate)

3. System prompt to make Claude less verbose reducing coding quality (4 days - better)

All this to say... the experience of suspecting a model is getting worse while Anthropic publicly gaslights their user-base: "we never degrade model performance" is frustrating.

Yes, models are complex and deploying them at scale given their usage uptick is hard. It's clear they are playing with too many independent variables simultaneously.

However you are obligated to communicate honestly to your users to match expectations. Am I being A/B tested? When was the date of the last system prompt change? I don't need to know what changed, just that it did, etc.

Doing this proactively would certainly match expectations for a fast-moving product like this.

They should really test everything thoroughly and then make it available to general public to avoid these issues!!

This is a very interesting read on failure modes of AI agents in prod.

Curious about this section on the system prompt change: >> After multiple weeks of internal testing and no regressions in the set of evaluations we ran, we felt confident about the change and shipped it alongside Opus 4.7 on April 16. As part of this investigation, we ran more ablations (removing lines from the system prompt to understand the impact of each line) using a broader set of evaluations. One of these evaluations showed a 3% drop for both Opus 4.6 and 4.7. We immediately reverted the prompt as part of the April 20 release.

Curious what helped catch in the later eval vs. initial ones. Was it that the initial testing was online A/B comparison of aggregate metrics, or that the dataset was not broad enough?

> "In combination with other prompt changes, it hurt coding quality, and was reverted on April 20"

Do researchers know correlation between various aspects of a prompt and the response?

LLM, to me at least, appears to be a wildly random function that it's difficult to rely on. Traditional systems have structured inputs and outputs, and we can know how a system returned the output. This doesn't appear to be the case for LLM where inputs and outputs are any texts.

Anecdotally, I had a difficult time working with open source models at a social media firm, and something as simple as wrapping the example of JSON structure with ```, adding a newline or wording I used wildly changed accuracy.

It's also important to realize that Anthropic has recently struck several deals with PE firms to use their software. So Anthropic pays the PE firm which forces their managed firms to subscribe to Anthropic.

The artificial creation of demand is also a concerning sign.

Opus 4.7 is very rough to work with. Specifically for long-horizon (we were told it was trained specifically for this and less handholding).

I don't have trust in it right now. More regressions, more oversights, it's pedantic and weird ways. Ironically, requires more handholding.

Not saying it's a bad model; it's just not simple to work with.

for now: `/model claude-opus-4-6[1m]` (youll get different behavior around compaction without [1m])

Just as a note to CC fans/users here since I had an opportunity to do so... I tested resuming a session that was stale at 950k tokens after returning from a full day or so of being idle, thus a fully empty quota/session.

Resuming it cost 5% of the current session and 1% of the weekly session on a max subscription.

Damn it was real the whole time. I found Opus 4.7 to holistically underperform 4.6, and especially in how much wordiness there is. It's harder to work with so I just switched back to 4.6 + Kimi K2.6. Now GPT 5.5 is here and it's been excellent so far.

Is it just for me that the reset cycle of usage limits has been randomly updated? I originally had the reset point at around 00:00 UTC tomorrow and it was somehow delayed to 10:00 UTC tomorrow, regardless of when I started to use Claude in this cycle. My friends also reported very random delay, as much as ~40 hours, with seemingly no other reason. Is this another bug on top of other bugs? :-S

Did they not address how adaptive thinking has played in to all of this?

Useful update. Would be useful to me to switch to a nightly / release cycle but I can see why they don't: they want to be able to move fast and it's not like I'm going to churn over these errors. I can only imagine that the benchmark runs are prohibitively expensive or slow or not using their standard harness because that would be a good smoke test on a weekly cadence. At the least, they'd know the trade-offs they're making.

Many of these things have bitten me too. Firing off a request that is slow because it's kicked out of cache and having zero cache hits (causes everything to be way more expensive) so it makes sense they would do this. I tried skipping tool calls and thinking as well and it made the agent much stupider. These all seem like natural things to try. Pity.

One of Anthropic's ostensive ethical goals is to produce AI that is "understandable" as well as exceptionally "well-aligned". It's striking that some of the same properties that make AI risky also just make it hard to consistently deliver a good product. It occurs to me that if Anthropic really makes some breakthroughs in those areas, everyone will feel it in terms of product quality whether they're worried about grandiose/catastrophic predictions or not.

But right now it seems like, in the case of (3), these systems are really sensitive and unpredictable. I'd characterize that as an alignment problem, too.

What kind of performance are people getting now? I was running 4.7 yesterday and it did a remarkably bad job. I recreated my repo state exactly and ran the same starting task with 4.5 (which I have preferred to 4.6). It was even worse, by a large margin. It is likely my task was a difficult or poorly posed, but I still have some idea of what 4.5 should have done on it. This was not it. What experiences are other people having with the 4.7? How about with other model versions, if they are trying them? (In both cases, I ran on max effort, for whatever that is worth.)

Who’s going to pay for the exorbitant number of tokens Claude used without delivering any meaningful outcome? I spent many sessions getting zero results, and when I posted about it on their subreddit, all I got were personal attacks from bots and fanboys. I instantly cancelled my subscription and moved to Codex.

Also, it may be a coincidence, that the article was published just before the GPT 5.5 launch, and then they restored the original model while releasing a PR statement claiming it was due to bugs.

The third bug is the one worth dwelling on. Dropping thinking blocks every turn instead of just once is the kind of regression that only shows up in production traffic. A unit test for "idle-threshold clearing" would assert "was thinking cleared after an hour of idle" (yes) without asserting "is thinking preserved on subsequent turns" (no). The invariant is negative space.

The real lesson is that an internal message-queuing experiment masked the symptoms in their own dogfooding. Dogfooding only works when the eaten food is the shipped food.

I’ve stuck to the non-1M context Opus 4.6 and it works really well for me, even with on-going context compression. I honestly couldn’t deal with the 1M context change and then the compounding token devouring nonsense of 4.7 I sincerely hope Anthropic is seeing all of this and taking note. They have their work cut out for them.

Appreciate the honesty from the team.

At the same time, personally I find prioritizing quality over quantity of output to be a better personal strategy. Ten partially buggy features really aren't as good as three quality ones.

Those are exactly the kind of issues you run into when your app is ai coded you built one thing and kill something else.

You have too many and the wrong benchmarks

Doesn't change anything about opus 4.7 being an absolute buffon. Even going back to opus 4.6 doesn't feel like the magical period maybe 3-4 weeks ago. Gonna go back to openAI

> On April 16, we added a system prompt instruction to reduce verbosity.

What verbosity? Most of the time I don’t know what it’s doing.

They had this ready and timed it for GPT 5.5 announcement. Zero chance it's a coincidence .

ngl lost alot of trust in cc after reading this, specially point 1

how do you just do that to millions of users building prod code with your shit

An interesting question to wonder is why these optimizations were pushed so aggressively in the first place. Especially given this is the time they were running a 2x promotion, by themselves, without presumably seeing any slowdown in demand.

Weren't there reports that quality decreased when using non-CC harnesses too? Nothing in blog post can explain that.

It’s incredible how forgiving you guys are with Anthropic and their errors. Especially considering you pay high price for their service and receive lower quality than expected.

As an end-user, I feel like they're kind of over-cooking and under-describing the features and behavior of what is a tool at the end of the day. Today the models are in a place where the context management, reasoning effort, etc. all needs to be very stable to work well.

The thing about session resumption changing the context of a session by truncating thinking is a surprise to me, I don't think that's even documented behavior anywhere?

It's interesting to look at how many bugs are filed on the various coding agent repos. Hard to say how many are real / unique, but quantities feel very high and not hard to run into real bugs rapidly as a user as you use various features and slash commands.

ugh, caching based on idle time is horrible for my usage anyway; since claude is both fairly slow and doesn't really have much of a daily quota anyway I often tell it to do something and then wander off and come back to check on it when I next think about it. I always vaguely assumed that my session would not "detect" the intervening time anyway since it was all async. I guess from a global perspective time-based cache eviction makes sense.

To think we'd have known about this in advance if they'd just have open sourced Claude Code, rather than them being forced into this embarrassing post mortem. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

So now the solution is to input a “ping” message every hour so that it keeps the cache warm?

Hi Boris, random observer here. Would you consider apologizing to the community for mistakenly closing tickets related to this and then wrongly keeping them closed when, internally, you realized they were legitimate?

I think an apology for that incident would go a long way.

This reads like good news! They probably still lost a bunch of users due to the negative public sentiment and not responding quickly enough, but at least they addressed it with a good bit of transparency.

A heavily vibe coded CLI would have tons of issues, regularly.

LLMs over edit and it's a known problem.

If anthropic is doing this as a result of "optimizations" they need to stop doing that and raise the price. The other thing, there should be a way to test a model and validate that the model is answering exactly the same each time. I have experienced twice... when a new model is going to come out... the quality of the top dog one starts going down... and bam.. the new model is so good.... like the previous one 3 months ago.

The other thing, when anthropic turns on lazy claude... (I want to coin here the term Claudez for the version of claude that's lazy.. Claude zzZZzz = Claudez) that thing is terrible... you ask the model for something... and it's like... oh yes, that will probably depend on memory bandwith... do you want me to search that?...

YES... DO IT... FRICKING MACHINE..

It appears that Opus 4.7 has been nerfed already. Can't get any sensible results since yesterday. It just keeps running in circles. Even mention that it is committing fraud by doing superficial work it has been told specifically not to do doesn't help.

I missed the part about the refunds…

Is 'refactoring Markdown files' already a thing?

How about just not change the harness abruptly in the first place? Make new system prompt changes "experimental" first so you can gather feedback.

Good on Anthropic for giving an update & token refund, given the recent rumors of an inexplicable drop in quality. I applaud the transparency.

Cool but I switched to Codex for the time being.

In other words we did the right things, but we understand feedback, oh and bugs happen.

not the first time. Still not showing thinking are we?

something i note from this is that this is not a model weights change, but it is a hidden state change anthropic is doing to the outputs that can tune the quality and down on the "model" without breaking the "we arent changing the model" promise.

how often do these changes happen?

I had similar experience just before 4.5 and before 4.6 were released.

Somehow, three times makes me not feel confident on this response.

Also, if this is all true and correct, how the heck they validate quality before shipping anything?

Shipping Software without quality is pretty easy job even without AI. Just saying....

The issue making Claude just not do any work was infuriating to say the least. I already ran at medium thinking level so was never impacted, but having to constantly go "okay now do X like you said" was annoying.

Again goes back to the "intern" analogy people like to make.

Reading the "Going forward" section I see that they have zero understanding of the main complaints.

So we weren't going mad then!

yesterday CC created a fastapi /healthz endpoint and told me it's the gold standard (with the ending z). today I stopped my max sub and will be trying codex

Now we know why Anthropic banned the use of subscriptions with other agent harnesses: they partially rely on the Claude Code cli to control token usage through various settings.

And it also tells us why we shouldn’t use their harness anyway: they constantly fiddle with it in ways that can seriously impact outcomes without even a warning.

had this happen to me mid-refactor and spent 20 min wondering if I'd gone crazy. honestly the one hour threshold feels pretty arbitrary, sometimes you just step away to think

The funny thing is, in the last 3 days Claude has gotten substantially worse. So this claim, "All three issues have now been resolved as of April 20 (v2.1.116)" does not land with me at all.

Good on them for resolving all three issues, but is it any good again?

> All three issues have now been resolved as of April 20 (v2.1.116).

The latest in homebrew is 2.1.108 so not fixed, and I don't see opus 4.7 on the models list... Is homebrew a second class citizen, or am I in the B group?

Zero QA basically.

Whatever they did, with the max plan, my daily usage quota was consumed in less than 10 minutes. Weird, let's hope they fix the usage now.

My takeaway is that they knew they were changing a bunch of stuff while their reps were gaslighting us in the comments here.

Why should we ever trust what they say again out trust that they won’t be rug-pulling again once this blows over?

If you think that you can just silently modify the model without any announcements and only react when it doesn't go through unnoticed, then be 100% sure that your clients will check every possible alternative and will leave you as soon as they find anything similar in quality (and no, not a degraded one).

Effort should not be configurable for Opus, it should be set to a single default that provides the highest level of capability. There are zero instances in which I am willing to accept a lesser result in exchange for a slightly faster response from Opus. If that were the case I would be using Flash or Haiku.

Interesting. All 3 seems like they’re obviously going to impact quality. e.g, reducing the effort from high to medium.

So then, there must have been an explicit internal guidance/policy that allowed this tradeoff to happen.

Did they fix just the bug or the deeper policy issue?

or you can use a non vibe designed efficient Rust TUI coding agent made by yours truly, all my coworkers use it too :) called https://maki.sh!

lua plugins WIP

Please for the love of god just put the max price plan up like 4x or 5x in cost and make it actually work.

Boris gaslighted us with all the quality related incidents for weeks not acknowledging these problems.

> On March 4, we changed Claude Code's default reasoning effort from high to medium to reduce the very long latency—enough to make the UI appear frozen—some users were seeing in high mode.

Translation: To reduce the load on our servers.

> On March 26, we shipped a change to clear Claude's older thinking from sessions that had been idle for over an hour, to reduce latency when users resumed those sessions. A bug caused this to keep happening every turn for the rest of the session instead of just once, which made Claude seem forgetful and repetitive. We fixed it on April 10. This affected Sonnet 4.6 and Opus 4.6.

Is it just me or does this seem kind of shocking? Such a severe bug affecting millions of users with a non-trivial effect on the context window that should be readily evident to anyone looking at the analytics. Makes me wonder if this is the result of Anthropic's vibe-coding culture. No one's actually looking at the product, its code, or its outputs?

wow resetting everyone's usage meter is great. i was so close to finally hitting my weekly limit for once though

They should do a similar report about their communication team. This was horrible mismanaged.

Too late bro, switched to Codex I’m done with your bullshit.

Recent minor issue worth flagging: Claude sometimes introduces domain-specific acronyms without first spelling them out, assuming reader familiarity. Caught this in a pt-br conversation about cycling where Claude used "FC" (frequência cardíaca / heart rate) — a term common in sports science literature but not in everyday Portuguese. Same pattern shows up in English too (e.g., dropping "RPE," "VO2," "HIIT" without definition). Suggested behavior: on first mention, write the full term and introduce the acronym in parentheses — "frequência cardíaca (FC)" / "heart rate (HR)" — then use the acronym freely afterward. Small thing, but it affects accessibility for readers outside the specific jargon bubble.

Corporate bs begins...

Gaslit for months, only to acknowledge.

So it turns out Anthropic was gaslighting everyone on twitter about this then? Swearing that nothing had changed and people were imagining the models got worse?

I genuinely don't understand what they have been trying to achieve. All of these incremental "improvements" have ... not improved anything, and have had the opposite effect.

My trust is gone. When day-to-day updates do nothing but cause hundreds of dollars in lost $$$ tokens and the response is "we ... sorta messed up but just a little bit here and there and it added up to a big mess up" bro get fuckin real.

> they were challenging to distinguish from normal variation in user feedback at first

translation: we ignored this and our various vibe coders were busy gaslighting everyone saying this could not be happening

ohh

Resuming from sessions are still broken since Feb (I had to get claude to write a hook to fix that itself), the monitoring tool doesn't work and blocks usage of what does (simple sleep - except it doesn't even block correctly so you just sidestep in more ridiculous ways), and yet there seems to be more annoying activity proxies/spinner wheels (staring into middle distance)... Like I don't know how in a span of a few months you lose such focus on your product goals. Has Anthropic reached that point in their lifecycle already where their product team is no longer staffed by engineers and they have more and more non-technical MBAs joining trying to ride the hype train?

Honestly, it’s kind of sad that Anthropic is winning this AI race. They are the most anti–open source company, and we should try to avoid them as much as possible.

They are all doing it because OpenAI is snatching their customers. And their employees have been gaslighting people [1] for ages. I hope open-source models will provide fierce competition so we do not have to rely on an Anthropic monopoly. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/claude/comments/1satc4f/the_biggest...

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

I have noticed a clear increase in smarts with 4.7. What a great model!

People complain so much, and the conspiracy theories are tiring.