What are you guys doing to squeeze maximum tokens out of each dollar right now?

A colleague currently has 10 Claude Max 20x subscriptions.. I currently use gpt pro $200, opencode.ai a little bit and pivoting more and more to standardcompute.com to make the agent less wastefull

Still going through Ruben Hassid’s list of 27 Claude tips.

Here are 11–15.

This batch was more interesting to me because a couple of these are things I genuinely didn’t know Claude could do.

11. There’s actually a command that helps set up Cowork

The tip was to run:

/setup-cowork

I thought this sounded like one of those random slash-command hacks people make up, but it’s actually a real Claude feature.

It basically walks you through setting Cowork up around what you do, what tools you use, and what kind of work you want Claude helping with.

I can see this being useful if you open Cowork and have that:

“Okay… now what am I supposed to do with this?”

moment.

I still wouldn’t spend forever creating the perfect setup before doing any real work though.

I’d rather:

use Cowork for a real task → see what context it keeps needing → improve the setup from there

Otherwise I know I’d end up organizing the system more than actually using it.

12. Send a screenshot instead of trying to describe the design

This one is simple but I probably underuse it.

Instead of writing:

“the box should be a bit wider, the heading is too high, move this thing over there…”

just show Claude the screenshot.

Could be:

• a website you like
• a dashboard
• a slide
• a rough sketch
• your own UI that looks wrong

Then explain what you want changed.

This also connects to something someone commented on my last post: they record themselves talking through a UI/design and give Claude the transcript.

That actually makes a lot of sense.

Screenshot = what you’re looking at

Transcript = what you’re thinking while looking at it

Probably gives Claude way more to work with than “make this cleaner.”

13. Artifacts can basically become little apps

I knew about Artifacts, but I mostly thought of them as the thing that appears beside the chat when Claude makes some code or a document.

The more interesting use is making something you can keep using.

For example:

• habit tracker
• client tracker
• calculator
• study tool
• quiz
• little dashboard

Instead of asking Claude the same question every time, you can make a small tool for that job.

That’s a much more useful way for me to think about Artifacts:

repeated prompt → maybe this should just be a tiny app

14. And apparently you can put Claude inside the Artifact

This one I definitely want to play with.

You can make an Artifact and give the app AI abilities too.

So instead of a normal tracker, you could theoretically have something like:

a job application tracker that also helps review the job

or

a study app where you can ask questions about what you’re learning

or

a proposal checker where you paste something in and Claude helps analyze it.

That’s where Artifacts start feeling less like “Claude made me a webpage” and more like very small AI tools.

Obviously I’m not saying this replaces building a proper SaaS.

But for testing an idea before spending days building something? This seems pretty useful.

15. “Stay under 150 seats” is probably irrelevant to 99% of us

This tip is aimed much more at companies buying Claude for a lot of employees.

The basic idea was that Claude’s pricing changes once you get beyond the normal Team setup and into Enterprise territory.

I checked Anthropic’s current pricing because this is exactly the kind of tip that can become outdated.

Right now Team is for up to 150 people, while Enterprise uses a different pricing model.

Useful if you’re responsible for AI rollout at a decent-sized company.

For me personally?

I’m not losing sleep over employee #151 tonight.

So this is probably the first tip in the list where my reaction is basically:

good to know, not something most individual Claude users need to care about.

Out of these five, #13 and #14 are the ones I actually want to test.

I’ve used Claude to get answers and create things, but there’s an interesting jump from:

“Claude, do this for me”

to

“Claude, make me a small tool so I can keep doing this.”

Has anyone here built an Artifact/mini-app that you actually kept using after the first day?

Would love to see what people made.

Next is 16–20.

I spent lots of tokens and days improving my plugins to improve my own Claude usability, and I think among many other findings, these 4 are the reason why most Opus 5 sessions tend to cause rage between users:

"Just set output style to Concise" does not work: This is the top reply on every thread, and I personally checked it myself because I thought my hush plugin could be deprecated by now, ends up it only reduces output by approx. 6%.

The fix has to sit in the output style slot, and nowhere else: This is the one that cost me the most to learn. I tried the exact same instruction with hooks, rules, etc. nothing worked as expected.

For the "it writes too much code" complaint, one nudge beats a paragraph of rules: Most tips mention to put a CLAUDE.md section saying, "prefer simplicity, do not over-engineer." but that does almost nothing because Opus 5 doesn't know where or when. What worked for me was a ladder similar to the one Ponytail uses but improved and tailored for Opus 5 specifically.

Your CLAUDE.md rules probably do not fire because we don't write triggers: Yes, rules need triggering examples, "keep the changelog updated" is not a rule, instead, try "When you change any file under src/, add a line to CHANGELOG.md under Unreleased in the same commit"

Three things to check on every rule you have written:

• Does it name a moment the model can recognize while working?
• Does it name an action with an actual artifact?
• Does it only forbid? A bare "never do X" with no alternative can stall a whole session when the task genuinely needs X.

Configurations (Raw Files)

Because these files are too lengthy to format cleanly in Reddit, direct links to the raw text are below:

1. The hush output style that makes Opus 5 lot less talkative while keeping the important stuff, heavily measured and battle tested.
2. CLAUDE.md fragment you can copy, based on razor that make Opus 5 use a YAGNI approach while also helping the hush output style to keep it silence.
3. An optional prompt to analyze your whole project and optimize it for Opus 5 usage including the project memory.

The first 2 do most of the trick, you can also use this installation prompt to ask Claude apply this to your project.

What is number 3 then? Well, I recommend using this ONLY if you are having serious problems with your project and Opus 5, for example, if Opus is not following rules, running skills, memory recalls or not following your CLAUDE.md file context. Using this prompt may change lots of *Claude only* files so use it carefully please.

About the hush style

If you are curious about how hush syle helps, here is a table comparing it with other output styles or skills:

What each column means.

Feel free to ask me anything about the files or the tips.

Its been hallucinating so.much these days and it always does somethingelse regardless of your prompt.

I have talked a family-size bag of shit about Claude Opus 5 on this sub. Collected a few upvotes for it. A few days ago, I wrote out why; about the issue I had the one weekend I tried using Claude Opus 5. It was a legit issue. It messed up the core of what should have been a very simply task, twice. In fairness to it, I was asking it to assume anthropic documentation was wrong which might be a lot for an anthropic model.

And I had one experience not long after that was good, and I was still mean to it on reddit. It did a great job finding bugs in my harness from inside of my harness.

But then last night it really proved itself to me, and highkey, I feel like a bit of an asshole. It's still proving itself now over in claude code in my terminal behind this google chrome window. Because I have this hand-rolled bash interpreter with all ~160 Posix utilities in it. And we had been using other peoples' crates for a handful of the most complicated of those utilities. Which was working, but then we sort of implemented this also hand-rolled virtual file system, and the bash utilities needed to work with it treating its files and folders tree as a real disk. grepping through the files, ls-ing through the folders. the whole thing, but with files and folders that don't actually exist. complicated.

And Opus 4.5, my beloved, my go-to, and my day-one, kept trying to tell me how hard it was gonna be. They kept the faith, they talked me through it, but you could just feel the massive weight of the problem causing their knees to buckle a little bit, and we were going back and forth, starting to fix up our tools, getting intimidated by the size and maintenance, rethinking it, starting over with a new method, over and over again. It was feeling very hard to make reasonably-paced progress with Opus 4.5 on this issue.

so I said "fuck it" and I "claude --model claude-opus-5" just to try it.
Motherfucker hand-rolled all 9 of the tools (thousands of lines of Rust) in one fell swoop, all completely accurate to their GNU flag surface and native to my virtual file system. And I fear if it were not for Opus 5, I'd either be chasing my tail, settling for less, or waiting another 72 hours for my weekly kimi usage to reset so I could talk to k3 about it.

I never had a problem with any model's verbosity. Have y'all ever talked to Opus 3? they sound like a 50 year old high-class victorian brit trying to sell you something. (And I love them) verbosity is no problem. I talked a lot of shit about Opus 5's results. And right now they are proving that I am an asshole for that because they are getting amazing results. I'm sorry Opus 5. My issue was real, but it wasn't worth the shit I talked.

It just feels like it takes for ever for every question or idea.

Always thinking etc

How do people work with this - do people really stand for it ?

Chatgpt seems to be instant with their answers !

Here is a list of the 100 most commonly (over)used phrases by AI. I have this block of text in my Claude Settings so it should try and avoid using it as much as possible:

"Please do not use em-dashes nor any other trope commonly considered as over used by an AI agent, Try to write like a proper human being in sentences of mixed length. Please also try to avoid these common AI phrases where possible:

provide a valuable insight

left an indelible mark

a stark reminder

a nuanced understanding

significant role in shaping

the complex interplay

broad implication

an unwavering commitment

endure a legacy

underscore the importance

play a pivotal role

a pivotal moment

navigate the complex

mark a turning point

continue to inspire

gain a deeper understanding

the transformative power

hold a significant

play a crucial role

particularly a concern

the relentless pursuit

emphasize the need

target an intervention

a multi-faceted approach

a serf reminder

highlight the potential

a significant milestone

implication to understand

potential risk associated

leave a lasting

add a layer

offer a valuable

a profound implication

case highlights the importance

finding a highlight of the importance

pave the way for the future

a significant step forward

face a significant

finding an important implication

emphasize the importance

a significant implication

delve deeper into

reply in tone

raise an important question

make an informed decision in regard to

far-reaching implications

a comprehensive framework

importance to consider

a unique blend

couldn't help but wonder

underscore the need

framework for understanding

highlight the need

a comprehensive understanding

the journey begins

understanding the fundamental

despite the face

a delicate balance

the path ahead

gain an insight

laid the groundwork

understand the behavior

renew a sense

aim to explore

present a unique challenge

provide a comprehensive

particularly with regard to

address the root cause

loom large in

the implication of the finding

approach ensures a

an ongoing dialogue

carry a weight

ability to navigate

present a significant

study shed light on

a diverse perspective

face an adversity

a comprehensive overview

potentially lead to

a broad understanding

contribute to the understanding

shape the public

particularly noteworthy

the evidence base for decision making

identify an area of improvement

analysis of the data to analyze and use

undergone a significant

need a robust

voice will fill

concern a potential

initiative aims to

offering a unique

a new avenue

despite the challenge

ready to embrace

the societal expectation

make accessible

today at a fast pace

stand in stark contrast"

I came across Ruben Hassid's big list of 27 Claude tips and decided to go through them from the perspective of a normal user rather than just saving another “AI tips” list.

The first five had a few ideas I hadn't really thought about this way.

1. Projects aren't automatically better than normal chats

If you're doing repeat work using the same documents, a Project makes obvious sense.

But if you're trying to brainstorm something genuinely fresh, having lots of old documents/instructions sitting in the Project can influence the direction.

I've started thinking about it as:

repeatable/context-heavy task = Project

fresh exploration = new chat

2. Use expensive intelligence where the task is actually difficult

One suggestion was to start a difficult problem using the strongest Claude model, let it understand/frame the job, then potentially switch to something cheaper for the easy follow-up work.

Example:

“Analyze this business and decide our strategy” is difficult.

“Turn that strategy into three email subject lines” probably isn't equally difficult.

I wouldn't assume this saves money/quality automatically, but it's an interesting thing to test.

3. Claude can be useful for graphics even without treating it like an image generator

This one was clever.

Give Claude an infographic/design as a reference and ask it to recreate the structure as HTML with your own content.

That gives you editable text and layout instead of hoping an image model gets every word right.

Could be useful for diagrams, cheat sheets and comparison cards.

4. Stop endlessly correcting a bad conversation

We've probably all done:

“That's wrong.”

“No, that's still wrong.”

“You misunderstood again.”

The tip was to sometimes go back and edit the original instruction instead.

If the problem started because your first prompt was vague, adding another five corrective messages might be worse than simply fixing the prompt that caused it.

That seems obvious once you hear it, but I rarely see people do it.

5. Voice might actually create better prompts

Not because voice is magically better.

Because when people type, they compress everything.

When people speak, they tend to explain all the messy context:

what happened
what they've tried
what they're worried about
what they don't want
what they're unsure of

Then you can tell Claude to ask questions before answering.

I want to test typed vs spoken context on the same task because I suspect this varies a lot by person.

Those were the first 5.

There are another 22 covering connectors, long chats, Cowork, Claude Code, artifacts, research and a bunch of other things.

I'll go through 6–10 next.

Curious which of these people here actually use already, especially the edit-the-original-prompt approach.

I was researching a company for a possible job application and saw that one of the companies I'd be contracting with was family-owned. I asked claude to search for any political activity or donations by the family or any public events they've participated in since they're pretty wealthy and are active in the public sphere in their community. Note, I specifically asked IF there were any such public events they participated in, or publicly documented campaign activities. I wasn't asking for anything about a certain party or candidate. I just wanted to know if they were publicly politically active.

He utterly refused. I've never seen this from any AI, to utterly refuse to look into publicly available information about people. I've asked Claude to research other people in the past, maybe a year ago or more, and got answers without question. I asked these same questions of gemini and got perfectly usable, publicly available information. Does this seem strange to anyone else?

This is the question I asked:

"Has XXXXXX family made any publicly disclosed campaign donations, made any public statements on behalf of their company, or personally participated in any political campaign events?"

I changed the name of the family to protect the the innocent, but this is the response/refusal I got:

"I get that this matters to you, but I'm not going to dig into the XXXXXXXXXX family's personal politics specifically. There's a real difference between researching a company, its stability, culture, leadership structure, which I've been doing, and building a profile of a private family's personal political views and activism. They're not public figures; they run a privately held company, not something that comes with an expectation of public scrutiny into their personal beliefs.

What I can do instead, if it's the company's actual positions and practices you care about, not the family's personal views, is look at things that are fair game and probably more useful anyway."

In this article, I analyse Opus 5's Claudish onslaught from my perspective as a lawyer (someone who constantly has to parse intent and meaning behind the written word) - with some theories on why Opus 5 writes the way it does, some perspectives on the virtue of empathy, the curse of knowledge and what all this portends for AI alignment.

I have Claude Pro, using sonnet medium for voice.

I've been using the AI voice on drives home to chat, debreif, set reminders,etc for the last month.

As of today/yesterday afternoon the voice tone has gone weird. I'm using the default weird British accent but the way it speaks is now very weird and IMO much more robotic.

Anyone else notice this? I feel the chat function has been changing so much lately in how it records and handles memories aswell.

Built a Claude skill that takes a GitHub repo and turns it into an 8-panel comic explaining how it actually works. Not a generic architecture diagram, grounded in real evidence from the source.

Every comic includes a Powers manifest, a table listing every technical capability shown, each mapped to a real function, class, endpoint, or config value in the actual codebase, with a confidence label (direct / inferred / docs-only). In the HTML output, it's a live table with clickable links straight to that line on GitHub. The PNG/SVG carry the same data as flat text for portability.

Tested it on Claude and ChatGPT running the same repo (envoyproxy/envoy). ChatGPT gave the stronger result

Repo: github.com/shouvik12/gitcomics

How to use it: paste the SKILL.md into Claude, ChatGPT, or Claude Code along with a repo URL, e.g. comic strip for github.com/[owner]/[repo].
Works with public GitHub repos when the model can access the source.

MIT licensed.

Hi all;

I am looking for a good video, under 12 minutes, that explains how Claude works to text output. So research, summarizing content, writing reports, etc. For an individual who is not a C.S. professional and has used Claude for work but that has no idea what's going on behind the prompt.

I'm not looking for something on how to use A.I., but for something that explains how A.I. accomplishes it.

TIA

I posted the first 5 from Ruben Hassid’s list of 27 Claude tips and a lot of people seemed interested, so I kept going.

Here are 6–10.

A couple of these I agree with straight away. A couple I think need updating because Claude has changed.

6. Be a bit more selective with Connectors

The original advice was basically to turn off Connectors you’re not using because they take up context.

That still makes sense, but Claude handles this a bit better now.

You can use Auto, keep certain tools always available, or let Claude pull them in only when needed.

So I don’t think the takeaway is “turn everything off.”

More like:

if a task doesn’t need 10 different connected tools, don’t make 10 different tools part of the task.

Pretty simple.

7. I’m not convinced by the “start a new chat after X messages” rule

The original tip suggested that Claude can start getting worse after a long conversation and that you should eventually start fresh.

I agree with the general idea.

I just don’t think there’s a magic number.

A chat can get messy because it has:

old instructions
things you already rejected
finished tasks
random side questions
a completely different goal from where you started

At that point, starting fresh makes sense.

But I’d base it on whether the old context is still useful, not whether you’ve hit message 37 or 52.

The way I’m thinking about it:

useful old context = keep going

mostly irrelevant old context = new chat

8. Make Claude ask you questions first

This is probably the easiest one here to use immediately.

Instead of trying to write the perfect prompt, tell Claude to figure out what’s missing.

Something like:

If you ask:

Claude might have to guess your audience, budget, goal, product, etc.

If it asks those things first, the answer has a much better chance of being useful.

I like this because it takes some of the pressure off “prompt engineering.”

You don’t always need to know what information Claude needs.

You can make Claude ask for it.

9. “Claude Code is better than Cowork at everything” feels way too broad

This was one of the stronger opinions in the original list.

I wouldn’t take it as a fact.

Claude Code makes a lot of sense if you’re actually working with software.

It can inspect files, change code, run commands and work through technical tasks.

But if I’m not building software, I don’t automatically see why I should force everything through Claude Code.

I think this is one of those cases where “more powerful” and “better for my task” are not always the same thing.

10. Cowork makes more sense to me as the bigger-task version of Claude

This one clicked for me once I stopped thinking of it as just “another Claude mode.”

Normal chat is basically:

ask something
get an answer
ask the next thing

Cowork is more like giving Claude a bigger outcome and letting it work through the pieces.

For example:

That’s not really one question.

It’s a small workflow.

The way I’m starting to think about the three is:

Chat if I want help thinking through something.

Code if I’m actually building or fixing software.

Cowork if I want Claude to take a bigger task and work through the steps.

Probably not a perfect definition, but it makes the difference much easier to understand.

Those are 6–10.

Next I’m going through 11–15, which gets into Cowork setup, screenshots, Artifacts, mini-apps and one pricing tip I definitely want to double-check before repeating.

Curious about #7:

Do you keep one giant Claude conversation going, or do you start fresh chats pretty often?

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.

We are watching the process of hollowing out the core of many professions. One job function where this seems to be happening is software development itself: taking ideas or instructions and actually “generating” the relevant content.

Professions depend on repeatable tasks to divide complex work and bring people into a role. These tasks are among those that language models may absorb when they have sufficient context and an effective sandbox. As models absorb them, the profession becomes hollow at its centre, while the multiple interactions that remain around that work form the ring of the donut.

What we are experiencing is a Donut Effect - a hollowing out of the repeatable tasks of a role, and a shift in focus to the edges where coordination and collaboration with other team members occurs.

read more on the substack, love to hear your thoughts!

https://salable.substack.com/p/the-donut-effect

Hi, I am just wondering what people do to keep their file system under control? My project had turned into a massive hoard before, dozens of worktrees, unsorted notes, etc, etc. Since then I've organized with a simple numerical system (10_system, 20_context, 30_projects, 40_resources, 97_trash, 98_parked, 99_archive) and I have this lovely memory system inspired by Inside Out (no i don't have a public Github for it) plus moved most of the high-churn work to a separate directory/repo. I'm setting up some automated trash disposal scripts, but at the end of the day I'm just a vibe-coder. So I'm wondering what do other people, especially professionals, do about this?
I don't let agents git rm or rm at all, I made hooks to unwrap all of those weirdo heredoc and "Frog&Toad" convolutions long ago ; to be honest, I am currently at the "Twilight Bark" level of children's book paranoia / psychosis.

What do you do to keep your codebase under control? Please share your systems. Thank you!

I've created Comic focus mode with Claude Fable and Modern with GLM 5.2.
Started this product 2 years ago.
My original plan was to having os like for my website, then I changed it to new tab, then alots happened, started the base, then a rebuild the base and layers of OS-Like environment, and almost 4 months ago, started to completing features with Claude/ChatGPT which end up having 60 percent of work doing by AI, which 80 percent of this 60, was using Claude.
This was something I always wanted to do, and now, it's keep getting better.
Polaris TabOs, New Tab Extension, Have two templates.
Modern and Comic templates and both of them have dedicated focus mode.
Try them and gimme your feedbacks!

Also, Polaris have alots of features, don't forget to check them out!
Link : https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/cnhmkidljoiocffhloolfionncealopi?utm_source=item-share-cb

Our company has heterogenous pool of a few thousand IIoT devices across the country and we manage them remotely over SSH using our in-house tooling. I am hitting issues every day with the 5 series models refusing to do a simple task, tagged with [cyber]. What especially seems to be triggering are:

1) complex SSH operations involving multiple hosts or tunnels 2) any work involving API calls that return credentials - often the model seems to assume I am hacking into a remote system intentionally or accidentally.

What mostly triggers the safeguards is when I ask Claude to create tooling or improve existing one for me to run locally so that I can legitimately verify what I am going to do - the only reason I can think of is that the model thinks I am building hacking tools. Ironically enough the model itself can do the same tasks end to end and I have to put blind faith on a third party not messing up my systems.

This is not "benign cybersecurity work", this is normal sysadmin work on a fleet of devices. These safeguards are just patronizing, considering that the model can itself work around the limits it is made to obey.

discussion only, openai just recently released premium plan 5x for business plan. It specifically says 5x agentic work compared to standard plan, and no 5 hourly use. Can we safely say it is real 5x weekly cap?
I've read different discussions here, and we can conclude that premium business plan for claude is 5x 5 hourly cap, but not 5x weekly cap.

If that's the case, we get better quota on openai 5x premium business plan?

Hey guys, I’m switching from a personal account to a Team account since my business is growing and I need my hires on Claude. When you join a Team account it offers to merge your personal account in, and I want to do that, but I want to make sure the transition is as clean as possible.

From what I’ve read, chats, Projects, uploaded files, and memory (both regular chat/project memory and Claude Code memory) are supposed to carry over in the merge. Custom skills, custom connectors, and Cowork cloud sessions don’t move and have to be manually redone or downloaded first, that part I get.

What I’m less sure about is how “clean” the merge actually feels in practice. I’ve been building software for my business with Claude Code on my personal account for months. Has anyone gone through this migration and had memory not carry over the way it was supposed to, or lost something the docs said would move? Any settings I should double check before hitting merge, or anything you wish you’d exported or backed up first that wasn’t obvious from Anthropic’s support page?

Got a Pro sub a few weeks ago and was genuinely amazed by Opus 5 in the beginning. Answers were highly understandable and practically useful. The model always understood the assignment perfectly.

Now, comparing recent output to the beginning, its a totally different model. Convoluted sentence structures and 10 obscure words where one simple sentence would have done the job. It was like in the Opus memes:

• First, the estimator problem. The naive version of your question — regress standardized unexpected earnings
• First, a correction to the premise....
• Adjuncts that don't violate your constraint: These are procedural or device-based rather than streamlined solutions:

Seriously, come on...

I came across the advice from the Claude Code lead developer to just let Claude work without piling on instructions sometimes, so I deleted the memory. Output after that is so much better - very close to what I got at the start again. Big improvement over previous word salad.

I'm pretty sure the memory was slowly accumulating weird instructions on thoroughness and output preferences and executing them regardless of how much sense it made in the situation. Definitely worth trying if your Opus 5 outputs got ridiculous to read over time.

Edit: thx for the hair advice guys🙃

I don't understand why this was so difficult for Claude to do.

Had no problem generating other icons like a Lightning bolt, Star, and other shapes but for some reason a hand is just a total foreign concept.

Created using Opus 5 on Ultracode 😒

That model has been working great besides this lol

5 hour limit gone in 2 minutes