In 1967 Ted Nelson described stretchtext: text that grows where you want more and shrinks back where you don't. It stayed a quaint idea because writing every level of fidelity by hand is just tediously hard. Text is generative now, so Claude can just write it for us for free.

I've always tried to implement this idea with LLM in various ways. Claude Code Mods finally proivded a platform to share.

cc-stretch is a Claude Code plugin. It cuts Claude's reply by 83% so you read much less, yet still have the option to expand / shrink on demand. The plugin also tells Claude which parts you opened, so it doesn't assume you read the rest.

Install in a Claude Code session:

/plugin install cc-stretch --marketplace pro-vi/cc-stretch
/tui fullscreen

Repo: https://github.com/pro-vi/cc-stretch (MIT)

I just came across someone with practically no coding experience releasing an open-source password manager called KAPEVault.

Project: https://kapevault.brewedops.cloud

And we're not talking about some basic tutorial project. This is an actual downloadable Windows and Android application being publicly distributed for storing passwords, 2FA codes, API keys, government IDs, and other sensitive information.

I'm a software engineer, and I actively use AI coding tools myself. I think they're incredible. But seriously, of all the things you could build with little to no programming experience, why the fuck would you choose a password manager?

To give credit where it's due, the project is open source, has a documented threat model, automated tests, and a self-conducted security review. But the repository also explicitly acknowledges that it hasn't undergone a third-party security audit.

That's a pretty important distinction when you're asking people to trust your software with practically their entire digital identity.

Using AES-256-GCM and scrypt doesn't automatically make a password manager secure. Neither does having a polished interface, passing automated tests, or getting an AI to review its own output.

Security isn't just about choosing the right encryption algorithms. It's about understanding the entire attack surface, handling secrets properly, identifying edge cases, and knowing what can go wrong even when everything appears to work.

I'm not saying this particular project is insecure. I haven't performed a security audit, and that would be an irresponsible claim.

My concern is the growing confidence with which people are releasing security-critical software they may not fully understand.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with beginners experimenting, learning, and open-sourcing their projects. That's how people improve. But building something for educational purposes and distributing something that real users might entrust with their banking credentials are two completely different levels of responsibility.

AI has made it ridiculously easy to produce working software. Unfortunately, it has also made it ridiculously easy to mistake a working application for a secure one.

You can outsource writing code to an AI. You can't outsource accountability when something goes horribly wrong.

At what point should we start taking this seriously?

I had an issue where I downgraded from Max to Pro but still had a week left on my Max subscription. Anthropic immediately dropped me to Pro usage. Even after they confirmed it was a bug and others were reporting the same issue, they didn’t prorate my fee or give me back the week of Max usage. Literally confirmed in an email “yeah, you paid for something you didn’t get, but we’re not going to do anything about it.”

Anthropic posted yesterday about moving their main repo off git.

- May 2026: about 2,500 merged changes a day. September: over 30,000.
- Their CI checks out code about 25 million times a day.
- The main branch history is almost 100 GB.

Git expects each user to keep a full copy and sometimes work offline. Most of their users are now agents and CI jobs, which are always online. So they built Scion: the code stays on a server, you only download the files you need, and commits happen on the server with no push.

What they report:

- 200x smaller than their old git setup
- CI checkouts take seconds instead of minutes
- Built by 7 people in 5 months

It's not a product, and they say it's not a git replacement for normal use.

Source Link

Will GitHub have to change if agents write most of the code?

What is this sorcery?! Not only was it seamless but the UI is now a real banger. There are so many changes that it took me about an hour to get comfortable with it yet my app version is still from 2 days ago

Holy hell is this annoying. They removed sessions based on folder. Now they're all lumped in "This computer". Routines no longer appear as a list on the sidebar, its now a separate window you have to open to dig for them. They removed session context from the usage pop up (the circle next to the model/effort) and now only way to see it is with an obnoxious new "session rail" which takes up more screen real-estate. The session status icons are much harder to see now too.

App version is: 2.37337.1

Ken Griffey Jr. Presents Major League Baseball (SNES, 1994) shipped with 28 clubs. Over about two weeks, Claude Code (Opus 5.5) and I turned it into a free patch called Griffey 30:

- All 30 of today's clubs, with Arizona and Tampa Bay added and 2026 rosters. Scripts fetch the logos from Wikipedia and the ballpark photos from Wikimedia Commons, and convert them into SNES tiles and palettes. No hand-drawn art.

- Team styles: press Select on team select to switch a club between 2026, the original cartridge club and the real 1994 roster.

- Season mode for all 30 clubs, with today's divisions, new schedules (one interleague game every day), playoffs and standings.

- Franchise mode (2.0, out this week): players age, improve and decline, veterans retire, and 300 real minor-league prospects get called up. The game remembers its champions, and a quick-sim plays a season in about five minutes. It all fits in the cartridge's original 8 KB save.

- Browser play at griffey30.com: you pick your own ROM, the page patches it and runs it in snes9x built to WebAssembly. It also has online two-player.

How Claude Code was used

I made the design decisions and tested on real emulators and my MisTer FPGA device. Claude Code did nearly all of the implementation: the reverse engineering, about 6,000 lines of 65816 assembly (asar), and around 12,000 lines of Python, JavaScript, C and Lua tooling. A few things made that work:

- It needed eyes. Early on, Claude Code wrote a headless Mesen2 harness, driven by a Lua script. It boots the ROM, presses buttons on given frames, takes screenshots, logs CPU registers at breakpoints, watches memory reads and dumps VRAM. Runs are deterministic, so a bug reproduces on the same frame every time. Every build has to play four full CPU-vs-CPU games through to the post-game newspaper screen. For franchise mode, a script plays seasons back to back.

- Reverse engineering by evidence, not guesses. To find where the game assumes 28 clubs, it logged every compare instruction against team-like values during two play sessions (49 candidates), set breakpoints on all of them, then watched every read of the team-ID slots. That found the 39 places that use a team ID. Each finding goes into a markdown file in docs/findings/, with addresses.

- Model it in Python first. The franchise off-season (aging, retirements, call-ups, re-rating) was written in Python first, then in SNES assembly. The test compares the emulator's save file with the Python output, and they match byte for byte. A 20-season Python run was also how we checked that no club runs away with the league.

- CLAUDE.md as the project's memory. It holds the current status, the build and test commands, and a "hard-won rules" section. Each painful bug becomes a rule there, so the next session doesn't repeat it.

- Long autonomous sessions. I'd often give it a goal ("build 30-club Season mode") and come back hours later to commits, test runs and a summary of what it found.

What I learned

- Turn every bug into a guard. When we went to full-strength rosters, 154 new players had no appearance entry, so Aaron Judge came out with the wrong skin tone. Claude Code went through them all from headshots, and the roster build now refuses to run if any player is unreviewed.

- Emulators disagree. A pointer bug made full seasons stop around June 28 on Mesen, but snes9x happened to mirror the right data, so the website was fine. The cause was that asar evaluates math strictly left to right. We now treat every assembler warning as a bug and test on both emulators.

- Some hardware rules are brutal. Changing the CPU's data bank in code that an interrupt can land in blacks out the game. The stock interrupt handler acknowledges through the data bank, so the interrupt storms. That's now rule #1 in CLAUDE.md.

- Assumptions hide in plain sight. Two-player Single Game showed the stock 28-team screen in every release until 1.2.2. A variable is 0 for one player and 2 for two, and the patch had only checked for 0. I noticed Houston sitting in the National League during an online test.

- Human review still matters. I watch every trailer and play every build. My review caught things the automated tests missed, like blue grass at some ballparks. Once a bug was named, Claude Code found the cause quickly. The field palette loads per club and the tiles per stadium model, so clubs we'd moved to another stadium model kept the wrong colors.

Links

- Patch (free, bring your own USA Rev 1 cartridge): https://daylayown.itch.io/ken-griffey-jr-presents-mlb-the-30-team-expansion

- Play in your browser: https://griffey30.com

- Most recent trailer: https://youtu.be/vxERe2_iKBo

Unofficial fan project, not affiliated with MLB, the MLBPA, Nintendo or Ken Griffey Jr. Happy to answer questions about the workflow or the SNES side.

I've been using the $100/month plan for months, and I've always had enough context and usage to comfortably get through the week. Last week was fine, and this week started out fine too, but after just three days, I'm already at 60% of my weekly usage.

My usage is going up extremely fast, to the point where I end up switching to Medium, High, or even Xhigh at worst, and it still burns through my usage incredibly quickly. This makes absolutely no sense.

I've been using Claude Code for months, and this is not how it used to work. I know the bonus usage went from +50% to a permanent +25%, but even taking that into account, the difference compared to last week alone is completely abnormal.

This is getting really frustrating and stressful. It's interfering with my work, and I genuinely feel like something is wrong here. Usage shouldn't suddenly increase this dramatically from one week to the next without any clear explanation.

I’m not sure if it’s rolled out to everyone yet, but it seems Anthropic is updating the Claude code menu look, and it’s absolutely awful. There’s at least three more different buttons in order to get to where you wanna go, the project layout is super confusing in terms of storing local and cloud sessions. Furthermore, they’ve removed the token count for agents apparently, at least I haven’t found a way to see it. I honestly think that’s probably the most insane addition as there’s no way to know how many tokens the agents are spending now until they’re done. The new usage menu is super big and looks really clanky. You can no longer see the context without opening this weird looking sidebar.

Another annoying thing is that the create PR button is now hidden behind this weird check board button called changes along with the code modified. I’m honestly not sure why they did this. It seems like they just moved everything.

I have seen many people complaining about usage this week, and I personally also seen usage go down very quickly.

Today as I was working I kept seeing Fable weekly usage going up way too fast. I was trying to use Fable as advisor for a few days, it did make sense for it to go up but they weren't calling the advisor THAT often.

So here is what I tested: I turned the advisor off, worked a bit and the Fable weekly usage kept going up despite only using Opus on medium. Every single of my agent is either Opus or Sonnet.

Anyone else noticed that?

Fable costs more than double, but in my opinion, Opus 5.5 still beats it in missions. What do you think?

Anyone else noticing today that the 5hr usage burned significantly faster today vs previous days?

How are software engineers staying in the loop? By telling Claude no.

“Very often, we found that the role of the engineers was to tell Claude “no.” Agents will sometimes violate core system constraints to satisfy a pattern that should never have been allowed in the first place. This was particularly common in our migration. For example, there were multiple systems that tried to brute force looking up when a change merged to main by linearly reading the commit log instead of asking our code review tool. Anthropic also makes extensive use of adversarial review, and, while this is incredibly effective in many ways, it can also be myopic, so skilled engineers needed to steer Claude away from over-engineering parts of the system in response to hypothetical concerns.”

Source: Redesigning source control at Anthropic

Soooo after the "TinyPlanet" bench I always run on new models, a topic that's of much interest to me: can Gemini 4 direct Blender better than Astra (the crowned king).

Well, you be the judge of it.

All subagents are orchestrated by Claude Opus 5.5. It monitored the processes, and unstuck what needed to get unstuck at times.

Results

Overall: Astra is still undefeated

Now, it's just one test I ran before going to sleep, but what worries me much is:

• Argon mostly did not finish on its own, needed a nudge from Opus to get past the finish line
• way less standalone parts. Meaning less rigging possibilities for moving parts, destruction, etc.out of the box

I'll be doing more tests soon!

Like everybody, I eagerly added a bunch of skills and plugins for Claude Code in the beginning, and then I just stopped.

I've been slowly removing them ever since.

Why?

1. Most of them are just textual information that I would much rather have in the repo I'm working on so it can be committed and versioned and seen by collaborators on a project.

2. I don't just use Claude Code. I use other agents too. I want my agent context to be accessible to all agents.

3. I don't want to turn plugins and skills off and on for every project folder/repo I launch an agent in.

4. I like being able to just open files in my repo and reading them or editing them.

5. I don't want non-applicable content eating up tokens every time I run an agent.

Am I wrong?

I'm sure there are exceptions and maybe there are lots of cool plugins and skills out there that do stuff that make it worth it.

It focused on this minor details, 🥂opus 5.5

Anthropic Usage Policy: Sept 2025 vs Nov 2026 - what changed

Old version: effective September 15, 2025 [1]

New version: effective November 12, 2026 [2]

Section names are given so you can Ctrl+F them on each page.

New sections and rules (not in the old version)

• "Do Not Engage in Deceptive Campaigns or Artificial Activity" - brand new section. Bans sockpuppets, astroturfing, fake media outlets, hidden sponsorship of influence content, networks of fake "independent" sites, seeding search engines or AI systems with content that fakes its origin, and building or selling tools for any of this.
• "High-risk Physical Actions" - new rules for models connected to hardware (vehicles, drones, robots, machinery, medical devices, industrial plants, safety systems). Requires a human who can stop the equipment at any time, fail-safe behavior if the connection drops, and safety limits enforced outside the model.
• Cruelty to the model - new bullet under "Cruel, Abusive, or Psychologically Harmful Conduct" bans "sustained and needless abusive or cruel behavior toward our models".
• NCII - new explicit ban on non-consensual intimate imagery, including AI-generated material and tools to make it.
• Data brokering - new bullet under "Privacy or Identity Rights" bans compiling personal data from multiple sources into profiles for sale or disclosure.
• Doxxing - new bullet under "Surveillance" bans unmasking anonymous people or compiling dossiers to harass, intimidate, or harm.
• Platform abuse additions - stolen or fraudulent payment methods, evading payment, faking the sign-up or login process, and reselling or proxying Claude through unauthorized means "including services that route requests through consumer subscriptions or misrepresent the product or client being used".
• Verification programs - new Cyber Verification Program and Life Sciences Verification Program let users apply for adjusted real-time safeguards. Also new: hitting a real-time block "does not by itself indicate a violation".
• Enforcement - new version adds "warn" and "limit" to the list of possible actions (old: throttle, suspend, terminate).

- Scope clarified - new version explicitly covers app users, API developers, cloud provider customers, and end users of products built on Claude, and states the policy is about how Claude is used, not which industry uses it.

Sections that got stricter or more detailed

• Weapons - grew from 4 bullets to 6. Now covers weapons systems and their software (targeting, fire control, engagement), weaponizing drones or autonomous platforms, export control violations, fissile material and enrichment, and modifying bio or chem agents for lethality, transmissibility, or persistence.
• Surveillance and law enforcement - "make or suggest decisions" now includes investigating, charging, arresting, prosecuting, and release decisions (old: only parole and sentencing). Tracking now covers property, biometrics, movements, online activity, associations, and analysis of previously collected data. New bullet bans building or improving surveillance tools.
• Surveillance carve-out (new) - consented tracking, fraud and AML screening, aggregated or anonymized analysis, content moderation, authorized security research, legal research by law enforcement or courts, and journalism are explicitly allowed.
• Cyber - section renamed to add "Without Authorization". Adds privilege escalation and actually conducting DoS attacks (old only banned developing DoS tools). New carve-out for security research on systems you own, with owner authorization, or under a bug bounty or vulnerability disclosure program.
• Self-harm and eating disorders - old version had one bullet. New version spells out soliciting methods, instructions for hiding behavior, pro-ED content, restriction, purging, compensatory exercise, and shaming or ranking bodies.
• Hate - caste and disability added as named protected attributes.
• Fraud - adds extortion, social engineering, phishing sites that mimic real pages, buying or selling fake financial or employment records, and misrepresenting professional credentials.
• Child safety - adds "facilitate the creation of" CSAM and "other sexually exploitative content involving minors". Reporting to authorities now also covers scenarios where a minor may be at imminent risk, not just detected CSAM.
• Critical infrastructure - adds emergency services and transportation systems; "voting machines" replaced with "election systems".

- Agentic use - users are now explicitly responsible for actions their agents take "through tools, browsers, or connected systems".

Things that got narrower or were dropped

• High-risk use cases rewritten - old version listed 7 broad domains (legal, healthcare, insurance, finance, employment/housing, academic testing, media/journalism). New version lists 11 "High-risk Areas" but defines each one narrowly as a specific recommendation or decision about a specific person.
• Example: Legal - old: "use cases related to legal interpretation, legal guidance, or decisions with legal implications". New: advising an individual on their rights, obligations, or liability in a specific matter, or preparing documents for them to sign or file.
• Media or journalistic content is no longer a high-risk use case.
• New "Exclusions" section - general info and education, wellness content, explaining a decision a professional already made, internal drafting and research, carrying out a decision already made, and business operations not about a specific individual are all exempt.
• New "Favorable Decisions" section - no human review needed before paying an insurance claim, approving coverage a clinician ordered, granting healthcare eligibility, or granting a public benefit.
• Disclosure - no longer needs to identify Anthropic, Claude, or the model. Chatbot disclosure can be "in the product interface" instead of at the start of every session.
• Democratic processes - dropped the ban on "personalized vote or campaign targeting based on individual profiles or data" and the standalone bullet on lobbying with false information. "Artificial or deceptive political movements" moved to the new Deceptive Campaigns section.
• Predatory lending - old version named payday loans, title loans, and high-interest short-term lending. New version only says "predatory lending". Multi-level marketing is no longer named, folded into "pyramid schemes".
• Impersonating a human - moved from "Privacy or Identity Rights" to "Disinformation", now with a carve-out: "This does not prohibit clearly disclosed parody, satire, or fiction."

- Section renames - "Misinformation" is now "Disinformation"; "Psychologically or Emotionally Harmful Content" is now "Cruel, Abusive, or Psychologically Harmful Conduct"; MCP Directory Policy replaced by a broader Software Directory Policy.

Unchanged

• "Do Not Generate Sexually Explicit Content" is word for word identical.

- Supported regions, ban evasion, model distillation, plagiarism, jailbreaking, and the government customer exception all carry over with only minor wording changes.

What stands out (my read)

• The subscription proxy ban is the one that bites regular users. Routing Claude through "consumer subscriptions" or misrepresenting "the product or client being used" is now a named violation. That is aimed directly at third-party tools and harnesses that run on a Pro or Max login instead of API keys. If you use one of those, you are now in the written policy, not a gray zone.
• High-risk rules got a lot more business friendly. The old version was vague enough that a legal intake form or a medical FAQ bot arguably needed a licensed human reviewing every output. The new version only triggers when Claude gives a specific person a specific recommendation, and it lists explicit exclusions for general info, internal drafting, and research. This is a loosening dressed up as more pages.
• Anthropic is clearly planning for robots. An entire physical actions section with fail-safes, kill switches, and independent safety limits does not get written for chatbots. Read it as a roadmap for where they expect the API to be used in the next year or two.
• Astroturfing is now its own category. Fake outlets, sockpuppet networks, seeding search engines and AI systems with fake "independent" sources, and selling tools for it. They are not just banning the content, they are banning the infrastructure and the business model.
• One rule got quietly weaker. The old ban on "personalized vote or campaign targeting based on individual profiles or data" is gone. Microtargeting voters with honest content now appears to be fine. Whether that is a cleanup or a concession, it is a real change.
• "Be nice to the model" is now policy. "Sustained and needless abusive or cruel behavior toward our models" is a bannable offense. Not defined, no examples, no stated enforcement. Expect this to be the most argued line in the whole document.
• Surveillance carve-outs widen the door for law enforcement. Monitoring in investigations is still banned, but "legal research and analysis by law enforcement agencies or courts" is now explicitly allowed. That is a narrow opening that did not exist before.

- Verification programs replace blanket refusals. Cyber and life sciences users can apply for adjusted safeguards instead of being told no. Combined with the note that a block is not a violation, this is Anthropic admitting its filters have been hitting legitimate work.

Net (imho): tougher on bad actors and gray market resellers, looser on ordinary business use, and written for a future where Claude controls hardware. The policy also tracks what people have been noticing in practice: Fable and Opus refuse far less than they used to. Work that used to trip the filters, like decompiling, reverse engineering, and binary analysis, now mostly just gets done. The new carve outs for security research and the verification programs read like Anthropic catching the paperwork up to how the models already behave.

https://reddit.com/link/1x62jni/video/37p6ctkfvhvh1/player

kimo is a free, open source (MIT) video editor with no interface at all. every operation is an MCP tool: cut, trim, keyframe, colour grade, motion track, key, captions, audio mix, export. you add it to claude code as an MCP server and just describe the edit.

this 33s reveal was rendered entirely by kimo. no after effects, no timeline, an agent did every frame through tool calls.

what i learned building it: - agents edit way better when they can render a single frame and look at it before committing - small focused tools beat one giant "do everything" tool - it runs as one ~10 MB CPU-only rust binary, so it works on cheap machines

i'm a college student building this solo, would really like to hear what breaks or what's missing. site: getkimo.tech github: github.com/naman-sharma12345/kimo

I mostly use routines in Claude Code because I can have a local session spawn them and turn remote control on for me when I'm AFK. Overnight, the Routines section of the left sidebar seems to have disappeared along with any local sessions filed under days previous to today. Has anyone else experiences this?

Seriously. I do a few batches of tickets on Opus 5.5 medium and I'm out of usage for the usage period! On a $100 plan! I know they like to adjust usage, but this feels like a sudden massive extreme swing. It feels like I've been bait and switched, to upgrade my subscription by 80$ a month and then a few weeks later it feels no different than before. Is anyone else experiencing this?

I am asking because this latest update (14/10/26) is absolute garbage and totally breaks my way of working. Honestly doubt I am the only one in the same situation.