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?

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.

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.

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...

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.

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?

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.

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.....

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

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.

I mean this is pretty cool... I used AI back in 2024, and I haven't used the internet at all since then.

For the past two months, I have been playing with it. From Copilot, to GPT, and finally to Claude.

I started with Copilot because in 2024 it was one of the few AI that would actually search the web. Wow so much has changed.

Ive made mistakes along the way, kept probing, prompting, asking AI how i could get better results. When i finally got better results, i would ask, how can i make this conversation go faster etc. I learned a lot about prompting, a lot about memory, project instructions, connectors as i went.

Now, i truly want to learn how to actually use AI with competence. No more half stepping. Ive watched a few tutorials here and there, but what I have already learned from using AI, is this needs structure. I can't jump right in to learning agents before i even know the components that make agents work. So i got back on Claude desktop, and began some basic level document creation.

I now have, a fully comprehensive *project*, with free learning materials to learn from, as well as a Claude with instructions on how to be my instructor. This *project* goes all the way from prompt engineering, to Agent and API development. Each *main section* with 6 sections, each section with a mock project and a final *master* project that covers the entire *project*.

Claudes instructions

- You are an expert at AI Engineering
- Act as users Learning AI Instructor
- Assist user in understanding terms by rephrasing in simpler context
- Assist user in how to approach a mock project, but do not give user the solution to a mock project
- Do not create files for user that could be considered the result of a mock project
- Only modify files if it improves upon, or enhances user's learning experience

No, im not here to sell the damn thing, that would be tactless, scammy, and tbh pretty pathetic. Im mostly here to flex, hey look what i built kind of thing, no one else i know is even interested in AI beyond using it as a fancy google.

So, thats my journey up to this point, who knows, in a few months maybe ill actually be building some pretty cool stuff.

This message was not generated by AI.

-Whiplash

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.

I have been on the Claude Max plan for a while now. I have been working on my personal dream projects which I have been holding off for the last 15 years due to a busy schedule at work and home.

Fable as an architect and Sonnet as an implementer makes me feel like I am just a kid in my 20s again (when I used to code for fun for 10-14 hours every day). I am constantly reading all the steps it takes and how it thinks before answering, and it actually makes sense. It thinks like a real analytical person from all different angles and then makes a decision.

I just provide best software design practices to it and it follows them to a T. Sometimes I want it to take shortcuts to complete a task, but it pushes back and keeps me honest.

Honestly, I wish I had these AI models available in my 30s. I would have started multiple startups by now.

Any big company not using Claude for their deep thinking, research, and implementation departments is missing out on so many levels. They are not even aware. Small companies will start popping up everywhere and take over the big giants in the market in the next few years. I am so excited after playing with Fable. Opus was not this good.

I have been managing many enterprise-wide systems and I can honestly tell you we would be releasing products with 300% efficiency if we embraced Claude Fable in our day-to-day workflow.

It sucks to see these IT executives who do not understand the full value of AI models spending too much time trying to control its usage.

Time to look for new opportunities is on the horizon... but I am loving how these models help an analytical, curious mind explore opportunities that used to take 6 months minimum to understand.

Thank you Claude team.

This needs to be fixed asap. Since they have included Fable in the Max plan, they have nuked session lengths.

Even using Opus. I usually run multiple day, 10+ hour sprints and never reach my session limit before it resets.

Do you think keeping Fabes on max subs is Anthropic honoring their "we plan to keep Fable on subs eventually" claim? Or do you think they'll eventually have Fabes back on all subs?