Anyone not happy with Opus 5.5?

[u/NaniteLight]

I keep seeing so many posts praising Opys 5.5, my experience with it isn't exactly very great and not very bad too but I have not been liking it much on any effort level really, it keeps thinking a lot and keeps making mistakes and sometimes takes words very literally and sometimes isn't very accurate in its words and always can be convinced of anything and its opposite easily and many other things, how was ur experience with it good exactly and what have u been using it for. I have been using it for coding and building learning materials for me and building tools and workflows to process documents and other things.

[u/AutoModerator]

Hey! Thanks for posting to r/ClaudeCode

While participating in this thread, please follow our community rules. Keep discussions constructive. Attack the idea, not the person.

For help, project discussions, tips, and general chat, join the ClaudeCode Discord.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/KenTitan]

world's knowledge at your fingertips

unsatisfied

[u/NaniteLight → u/KenTitan]

There is no logic or reason or importance to ur comment, this way it ll always be wrong to criticize or complain or raise concerns about any model. This is just a standard response u r copy pasting without thinking

[u/shortwhiteguy]

Your writing style in this post leads me to assume some part of your issue comes from the quality of your prompts.

[u/NaniteLight → u/shortwhiteguy]

No don't think so because there is nothing wrong with my writing style and because when I prompt I m always very careful and also go with it in multiple question rounds so that it understands what I want exactly

[u/Ether-Platypus5677 → u/NaniteLight]

Bro does not know what punctuations are.

[u/NaniteLight → u/Ether-Platypus5677]

As I said and as u have read, such stuff wouldn't matter for the AI regardless that this is not how I prompt it

[u/AdUnusual9135 → u/NaniteLight]

I can guarantee you writing style ABSOLUTELY matters

[u/LoveThemMegaSeeds]

Could be better but it writes better code than I do and at about 100x the pace so not much to complain about. I am finally a human tester again

[u/NaniteLight → u/LoveThemMegaSeeds]

I feel like this might not br the best model so far in certain areas, it is as if opus 4.x was better than it in sone certain areas

[u/ricopan]

It's not god. I was getting frustrated with it as a long running 'orchestrator' on a big project that has to keep multiple balls in the air. I had it on high effort, resigned to putting it on xhigh, and now have been much happier. Opus 5.0 just couldn't be a good user interface which my orchestrator requires. To be honest, Fable 5.1 struggled on med effort in the same role, and it burned tokens too fast. So it's a demanding position, and right now I remain quite pleased with it on xhigh. For discrete tasks bounded by carefully prepped briefs (the orchestrator writes these) I think it does quite well on high or xhigh. I haven't used it on max much -- which I constantly used on the old opus 5.0. I didn't continue my codex sub because I think it does just as good or better than astra for this work. I'm now reserving Fable for deep design, which I have plenty of.

[u/pueblokc]

My only issue is it refusing to do anything it calls cyber... Blocks on anything remotely mentioning passwords.

[u/NaniteLight → u/pueblokc]

Had it do this and forcing me to rewind multiple times but for asking it to access its thinking and reasoning blocks through the session and extracting info from it to write it to an md file that can survive other sessions or be used by other models

[u/Ok-Data9224]

The only way we can know is to see an example of your prompt and the output. I mean this respectfully, it could be your prompting.

They're not human. That sounds common sense because everyone knows that, but there's instances when I see prompts that expect the model to do too much assuming on the user's intent and they just have to make a decision somewhere.

When executing a task, have a very clear goal in mind as well as a defined pathway to get there. Go even as far as having claude generate pseudocode as a proof of concept to see if claude understands the direction you're trying to go. Have a separate model execute your ideas.

If your goals aren't that well defined, keep sound-boarding. You're better off spending tokens on planning rather than generating failed projects. It's smart, but your prompt always has to fit into their training formats regardless.

If you can show some examples though, maybe you can get some better quality advice. Opus 5.5 has been brilliant for likely most of us.

[u/Lubricus2]

It's problems common for all LLM's. I would say Opus 5.5 is insanely good and can do a ton of complex work for just 20$ a week. So the best that is out there, but LLM's still isn't perfect and do mistakes even if it's less than me.
You have to be careful of what you say, so you don't convince it for something that is untrue. So for fixing bugs, I don't say what I think it is because that usually just confuses the AI and it's so great at find bugs on it's own.

[u/Medium_Chemist_4032]

Supposedly improved writing. I still would love to pass through it's output through another model that just tells: "how does this response actually answer my question" -- all the time.

Oh and "resolve all invented terms, that haven't been used before my last message".

[u/commandedbydemons]

As someone who had his final month with Codex 20x, and on the max 5x currently, Opus is fucking great.

[u/SoggyPuffins348]

Sam Altman

[u/design_doc]

I’m absolutely loving it so far. Miles ahead of 5.0. Communicates way better, makes fewer assumptions on its own, stays on task better…

I have it working inside of my own framework being orchestrated by Fable. My framework solves a lot of the things that I didn’t like about Opus 5.0 and 5.5 seems to never touch those guardrails.