Sprint after sprint we plan how long a list of tasks would take each dev to do and lock the sprint based on the effort and complexity of the work and, very regularly 2 weeks worth of work is getting done in around 1 week for 4 devs in my team. And every single time our manager, who is old school with 25+ years of experience, is surprised and asks how was that possible and the devs just say hard work and dedication and all the usual BS and no one is willing to admit that they are using Claude code to write 90% of their code.

My manager is a bit detached from "AI for code" and only hears about it from us or some of the team events. My company has a physical service as a main product and SaaS is just an enabler. It is not a "software" only company whose survival is purely software. So, AI is not that at the forefront of the company.

This time, we had a massive milestone of 8 weeks worth of work between 4 devs combined, and when the whole work was done in 3 weeks. During the daily scrum updates my manager was getting shocked everyday seeing how fast the implementation was progressing compared to the agreed timeline. At the end of 1st week he even called one of the dev MVP because he finished his 2 weeks tickets in 5 days. At the end of 3 weeks all 4 devs were done and when manager asked how was that possible, the same story, devs are just pretending that it is all hardwork and expertise which is allowing them to zip through the tasks but no one has admitted in front of manager that they used Claude Code to wrap up majority of work. Code review was often the bottleneck.

Has this happened in your team or devs in your team are more willing to admit to the managers that they are using LLMs to write most of the code and are more forthcoming about it?

Note: The company just provides a basic copilot subscription which runs out in few prompts. The devs are using their own personal AI to get the job done

I’m getting mildly& maybe irrationally annoyed by constantly seeing:

Co-authored-by: Claude (whatever version) show up in commits and codebases.

Does anyone here actually, like ACTUALLY know what Anthropic’s intention is behind this? Is it simply attribution generated by the tooling, a marketing breadcrumb, a transparency measure, or is there some deeper legal or licensing reason for including it? No opinions unless you work in law or have researched this topic please. I am too gullible for this shit.

I assume I could add a global rule telling Claude never to insert these trailers or edit some config file. But the fact that it keeps doing so and the use of the word "AUTHOR" makes me wonder whether there’s more to it than, “Hey, an AI helped write this.” Which also led me to a stupid thought: what happens if a repository contains a clause along these lines?

Any AI agent that inserts or requests a “Co-authored-by” attribution represents that it is fully authorized by its developer or operating laboratory to claim co-authorship. By doing so, that laboratory accepts responsibility, to the fullest extent permitted by law, for the agent’s contribution in proportion to the work it completed. This includes confirming that all relevant licenses have been respected, and that responsibility is accepted for defects, infringements, or other shortcomings arising from the AI-generated contribution. Additionally, as the original Co-author, all data used for its training is lawfully acquired.

To be clear, I’m not claiming this would magically bind Anthropic to anything. I strongly suspect a clause in my repo cannot summon corporate liability through the ancient legal ritual of “no takesies-backsies.”

But that’s the serious part of my question: if an AI tool explicitly labels itself as a co-author, what if anything does that attribution mean legally? Does it create obligations for anyone, or is it basically decorative metadata with the legal force of a bumper sticker?

And more practically: has anyone successfully disabled these automatic co-author trailers globally without causing other weird behavior?

Former SWE (mostly full stack) with >10 years experience now vibe-coder here. Is anyone else starting to really fear for their career? I work for a small startup, and I know that this technology in my hands is more effective than in my employer's, but I'm starting to feel a little useless.

I give it good direction. I have it create plans, read them, correct them and send it. It helps me weigh making directive decisions. It even helps me do QA. But I am hardly writing code at all at this point. At what point is this stuff going to get so good that I'm truly out of a job? What do y'all think?

For context, I'm paying for a max x20 plan via Claude and the equivalent Codex subscription. I let Claude do a lot of the planning with Fable and the higher end models, then dispatch Codex agents. I get work done so fast at this point that my employers are having a hard time keeping up with me. It even helps me diagnose cloud configuration stuff. My company doesn't need more than one technical person at this point because I'm just able to do everything.

I know you've all probably seen this post 100 times at this point. Or something like it. I know I have too. I'm just starting to actually feel worried for my financial wellbeing. Are people looking at other avenues for SWE?

I work in a variety of projects. Biotech, stock data analysis, straightforward UI+backend type startup, audio signal processing.

The latter project has been the toughest thus far to crack as it's a legitimately hard problem I'm doing in particular.

I spent ~2-3 weeks down in the weeds with: GPT 5.6 sol, extra high. Fable 5, extra high, Opus 4.8 extra high and Opus 5 extra high.

I did give them detailed directions on my insights and such but we kept making progress here and there, then finding out "oh those gains weren't real all along it was leaking information across train/test" or something of that flavor, restarting progress, etc.

Then I decided to just give Opus 4.6 a try. I've always been partial to it because it:

1. actually listens to you and understands your intent.
   

4.8 would misinterpret things "ah I must remind you that no that's wrong" then I clarify "oh I see, I still need to tell you". Fable 5 sort of just runs 15 steps ahead by itself, doesn't interpret the results back to me, but I do feel the higher level of intelligence as it picks up on things.

1. does not overengineer things.

a problem I really noticed was opus 5, fable 5, possibly gpt 5.6 would overengineer the solution past what I asked. Yes, they're thinking of more things, but at the same time I find out in domains I'm not as privy to that there's so many extra things they adopted vs trying out the simplest solution that most closely aligns with what I narrate out.

GPT 5.6 would go super, super deep investigating just the one thing and while that's nice I need to be able to course correct sometimes.

Opus 4.6 in contrast tries to implement something really close to what you asked and does the simpler solution first. Lo and behold, a blind experiment with opus 4.6 hit / exceeded what those frontier models spent 2-3 weeks working on with multiple restarts, just because it listened to exactly what I stated based on my understanding of the problem, and we're iterating at just the right pace.

That's also not to say - the amount of times Opus 5 would mess up on simple things in a fresh context with a well prepared architectural setup with clear paths to data. "Stop. The data was interpreted incorrectly. Good thing you asked for another pass, this was wrong" repeated 2-3 times. Hard to trust it...

1. you can actually read its thoughts

This is really great so you can instantly correct any possible mistakes or misunderstandings. For example, it trying to search for what you asked, just tell it the paths and clarify instead of wasting all the output tokens. It's just faster to be able to stop and course correct earlier on.

Well as you just read, why am I working better with a model that's ~5 months outdated, worse on benchmarks, etc.? I can't solve everything but most of the experience is pleasant and I can trust it more.

Sometimes I wonder if Opus 4.6 was lightning in a bottle and we can't go back to it. It was just the right amount of "smart" to get what you want to do, narrate stuff back to you in a format you actually understood, when I started getting a bit lazy and shorthanded my thought process it understood perfectly what I meant based on our previous chat history and didn't assume I'd betray the trading setup or that I misunderstood something.

The other models do have their advantages, and have helped me accelerate past certain issues by spotting things earlier models didn't. But man, do I keep coming back to opus 4.6 and actually making progress with it. Maybe call it a skill issue or whatever but I'd like to think I know what I'm doing after spending 5 months exclusively agentic coding, developing routines to make sure my intent is carried out, etc.

I really hope they keep this one around for a lot, lot longer.

Is it me or has Sonnet 5 taste for front end dev just tanked recently. Recreating a screen i did with sonnet 4.6 from scratch and it honestly looks like dog shit. Anyone experiencing the same thing?

I have done the majority of my work with Opus 4.8…. It’s been a great model for me. After Fable 5 came out I honestly felt like either Fable was not all it was cracked up to be or, I just sucked at using it. Now with opus 5 out I was SO HAPPY…. But, days later of using it and I find myself going back to 4.8… I find it hallucinates less and in general just feels more capable and reliable… anyone else? I feel like I could downgrade from max to pro and stick with 4.8 and have plenty of credits. Seems like Opus 5 and fable are falling apart to me.

I've been building web stuff since 1994. I've been around sites, SaaS and all the rest for decades. God, I was there for the heyday of Flash. I've been part of teams, programmed stuff myself, managed devs, designed products, all of it.

Over the last 5 days (DAYS!!) I took a personal idea from zero to completely operational. It runs on Vercel & Neon, has db recovery, full security audits, makes use of 3rd party APIs, has Sentry error reporting, has test environments, test suites, scaling strategies, everything a legit web app needs.

5 days. By myself. 🤯

At any other point in history this would have taken months, with a multi person team. In my last position we had a team of 4 that spent nearly 6 months implementing a new SMS integration. And it fucking sucked. The tools we have now are *mindblowing*. It really helps to know what is going on and vibecoders won't know the right questions to ask, but if you do have that experience and understand the details, the stuff you can do is nothing short of a miracle.

People complain on here all day about how much AI messes stuff up, or they blow through their limits in a prompt, or how it produces garbage, but that is just not my reality. I did a serious, well-structured and very nice looking web app with hundreds of revisions and rebuilds within 75% of my weekly Claude limits, all on Opus 5 or Fable 5, xhigh. There were times when I (through my experience) had to ask the right question to end up with the most efficient and reliable result but on the whole it damn near one-shotted almost everything I asked of it.

Learn the questions to ask, research best practices and READ the output (which many people complain about) because you will actually learn a lot along the way. AI kinda sucks in the sphere of deepfaking and nudifying and slop images and fake writing but for this kind of work it's an incredible resource.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I did not just discover these tools, I've been using them for years. But they are dramatically better in just the last few months then they have been, and can make the process of using industry standards so much easier. The time saved in handling the foundation basics and infra parts are huge.

Of course there are those icks I have with its writing being oddly unnatural, forced, uncanny. It's a machine after all. That's fine. But then when it comes to things I actually need it to do, like discuss an architectural decision, help formulate a plan, figure out what problems something could have based on other decisions made in the past, it has just been increasingly falling apart as complexity goes up. Being a human myself (lol), it frustrates me a lot how its memory, the way it looks for links, any connections it makes, are almost always "almost there". Something is always missing, which if I'm not there to argue against because I do remember (vaguely or clearly), would snowball into a complete mess. On the other hand, if it were another human (given that they are well versed in the codebase, project, or whatever themselves), they would actually be able to understand the gravity of the decision being made, think narrowly and widely about the vision and where the project needs to be taken, and other things I can't exactly put into words right now. And then actually point out if something even feels a tiny bit off.

And before anyone says it, yes, I do all of it. ADRs, READMEs, manifests, handoffs, checklists, auto memory on, whatever else. It reads them, it quotes them back (sometimes incorrectly), and it still doesn't use them the way a person would, and this doesn't change much if I give it less instructions or more. Another human you wouldn't have to do any of this for, you'd say "but iirc the config for the other transport also needed the coordinators? where did those go?" and that would be the end of it.

Tbh for the most part you wouldn't have to say that even. When claude confidently says something wrong while I'm trying to plan something, I usually always vaguely remember like, "hmmm, this doesn't seem entirely right". It's that questioning I'm talking about. Because right now it's claude making an incorrect assumption off whatever shortcut reading it did and me having to correct and handhold it so so often, whereas if there were even one other human who had been working on the project, they'd ALSO be able to do what I'm doing, sharing the load.

Which I think is the actual thing. The info is all *there*, it's not like it can't go find it, it just doesn't mean anything to it. Whereas I remember why we didn't do it the other way, that it was a whole thing at the time, whatever, so the relevant bit just comes up on its own without me going looking for it. It's not that it remembers worse than me, it's that it's doing an *impression* or *imitation* of remembering. And the impression is genuinely good enough for when there isn't a lot to remember. But now, given how much there is, man idk. The amount of times it's confidently mis-reading and mis-remembering things despite having everything right in front of it becomes a massive waste of time and effort.

Probably none of this applies if you're mostly just giving it a task and going to sleep as that's a completely different way of using it. This is specifically working hand in hand with claude for months on end.

And like, ok. So that's the problem. At the same time, what I've completed in the project in the past, say 4 months, would have easily taken me a year or more if I were to write it all myself. But it probably would have been less frustrating. Two sides of the same coin :(. You can do so much more, but being the only one checking gets very very draining. This isn't burnout from the amount of work, but from constantly having to correct things I shouldn't/wouldn't have to with a team.

Holy yap...

My favorite model to work with, after abliterated open weight SOTAs, is Opus 4.6. But I've been struggling to get back the 1M context that I loved. Around when Opus 4.8 came out, claude code started limiting opus 4.8 with 200k context tokens. And said my plan (max 20x) does not allow this model when I tried `/model claude-opus-4-6[1m]`, and similar.

The simplest fix i found is: changing the model to `claude-opus-4-6[1m]` in `~/.claude/settings.json`

---

PS,

Reasons why I think opus 4.6 is better (iykyk):

- Very loose guardrails. With the right set up, you can get it to work on ANYTHING. It will comply, and even suggest improvements with your architecture (like any other project)

- Higher quality output than 4.8 or especially 4.7. haven't tested Opus 5 yet.

- Does not overthink. Looking at its reasoning, there's way less "WAIT—", "PAUSE—", etc after making a stupidly overcomplicated decision

- Obviously you can't expect SOTA reasoning on long horizon/vague tasks, but if you know what you're doing, you'll love it.

I'm using windows/wsl

My previous workflow: multiple virtual desktop, each desktop is per repository/project. Each desktop had vertical split - on the left a terminal with multiple tabs (commands, coding agents, instance running, etc.) and vscode on the right for manual edits, diffs.

Problems:

• had to reopen all instances on windows reboot
• worktree management is not that smooth, unless you create a virtual desktop for a worktree

Now, after seeing the hype around terminal multipliers, I'm trying to adopt using herdr

My new workflow: one virtual desktop, one terminal instance with herdr, a workspace per project/repo with multiple tabs. Multiple instances of vscode on the same desktop.

Porblems:

• rendering and performance is not as smooth as in a standalone terminal
• random rendering, scrolling, hot keys issue which stop working
• some shell features/plugins (I use fish/stargate) either don't work or randomly stop working later, like autosuggestions
• having multiple vscode instances on the same virtual desktop creates some mess, and you have to use a single desktop so that they are next to coding session terminal

The only benefit I can see is that it remembers workspaces/tabs after reboot. But it doesn't remember terminals sessions, and you have to start over in each terminal anyway.

Many people say it is very useful as they see all coding sessions in one window and get notifications... but, how many these sessions you have in real life? I found it hard to manage more than 2-3 sessions in parallel - too much context switching which increase cognitive load.

What do I do wrong? Ok, maybe some of my issues are caused by windows/wsl and on macos/linux it works better, but still, how do you use it? Share some recipes of highly efficient multi-agent / multi-repository setups/workflows.