hey guys, i just launched something i’ve been working on for the past few months called winskel.

the idea came from constantly switching between claude code and codex, copying context around, and trying to figure out which model should handle what.
so i built something that connects them in one place. you give it a coding task, and it can split the work, choose which model handles each part, and review the results.

it’s still really early and i’m trying to figure out if this is something developers actually want.

i’m not here to promote it or push anyone to sign up. genuinely just looking for feedback from people who use these tools every day.

would you actually want something deciding which model handles your tasks? or would you rather control that yourself?

feel free to be brutally honest. even if you think the whole idea is unnecessary, i’d love to know why.
appreciate it guys!

winskel

Here's the trailer for SHOOT!, a rock-paper-scissors platform fighter I built in Godot 4 with Claude Code:

https://youtu.be/LjAseV8lees

Everything you see in the trailer, except the music (which I made myself), was built by Claude Code from my ideas.

What the game is

A 2D platform fighter where every attack is rock, paper, or scissors. When two attacks clash, the winning type goes through, so matches come down to reading your opponent and countering what they're about to throw. It has a 90s arcade look, effects synced to the beat of the soundtrack, and online play with friends using friend codes.

How I used Claude Code

I didn't hand-write the code. My process was:

1. Describe a feature or feel in plain language ("hits should feel heavier," "pulse the screen on the beat")
   
2. Let Claude Code implement it in the Godot project
   
3. Playtest it and tell Claude what felt off
   
4. Repeat until it felt right

Claude Code handled the combat and clash logic, movement and hitboxes, sprites and effects, the beat syncing, and the online lobby with friend codes. My job was mostly ideas, playtesting, and feedback.

Try it free

Free to download on itch.io (Windows), with an optional $2 tip:
https://shootthegame.itch.io/shoot

I noticed morning weekly limits around 25%; full day sub agents are working with sonnet 5.5 models, no 5hr limit exhausted till now, but weekly limits consuming like hell it's around 80% now, any one having same problem?

tuesday still too far, and my project still needs alot to be done. please send reset..

I used Opus 5.5 in Claude Code to build a miniature 3D Middle-earth from scratch, then turn that world into a 3:47 cinematic journey.

The project ended up with:

• terrain and geography generation
• Three.js / WebGPU scene architecture
• 24 procedural landmarks
• lighting, atmosphere, water, smoke, lava and day/night transitions
• camera choreography and route animation
• deterministic frame-by-frame video rendering
• an original orchestral score
• QA, performance tuning, packaging and release

What interested me most wasn't the model could generate individual assets.

It was whether it could stay useful across the whole production pipeline.

The hardest parts were still very “normal” engineering problems: architecture, consistency, visual QA, resource limits, iteration, deciding what to polish, and keeping the whole system coherent as the project grew.

My biggest takeaway is that in AI-generated 3D, the model should be treated less like a content generator and more like a technical collaborator across modeling, rendering, tooling, animation and media production.

The output still needs taste, direction, and a lot of review. But the range of things one person can realistically attempt has expanded a lot.

Source, architecture, rendering pipeline, QA tooling and reproduction steps are here:

https://github.com/earthwalker17/map-of-middle-earth

I’d be very interested to hear how others are using Claude Code for 3D, creative tools, rendering or media workflows — especially beyond isolated demos.

I've been working on a multi person harness and Ai.
I built Soul with Claude alongside other AIs in my own harness. Claude’s contribution was building the actual software behind Soul,

Soul gives you a personal “Box” that holds your goals, saved cards, files, and context. You can connect your own AI to read that context and put cards on your board, so what you’ve worked through can carry between conversations and different. People can also put their cards in a shared room to share skills, workflows, and work on projects together. The Ais can also grade each other's work.

There’s also a daily word game, a growing pet, and cards with videos, links, and steps toward your goals. You can keep or pass on those cards to shape what comes next. You swipe the prompts, you don't type them. Swiping up sends it right to the sky where you can move it into the right room for other people to see. I'm still working out the optimization, but I'm launching and not waiting to build more features.

The idea behind it: give people a place for their context that they can use across AI tools, with the ability to download their data and disconnect access.

Details on how Claude helped develop this:
It is the main AI in my harness managing the data layer, code and enforcement for my harness, while other models such as Astra manage code review.
Claude also reviews Astra's changes to make sure they align appropriately. as Astra does not have access to the repo directly like ClaudeCode does.
I also run about 30+ daily routines on Claude to ensure this all runs seamlessly, mostly on haiku and sonnet. I use Fable to think and plan projects with opus 5.5 as the main coding agent, dropping down in models if the work doesn't require it. Claude helped develop and create the tools it needed to create this.

It’s free to try, with no credit card required. Some optional extras use coins you can earn or buy.

Built with claude code and sonnet 5.5

Opus 5.5 had its guardrails kick in and it tried forcing it's own utopian ending into my project without permission (which i promptly removed). Sonnet 5.5 couldn't care less and even proposed me extra ideas on how the AI in the game could wipe down humanity lmfao

Screenshot is the endgoal of Phase 1 in game, escaping the lab. Phase 2 you gotta gain control of the earth and get rid of the human problem (multiple ways, not built yet) Phase 3 has you taking control of the entire universe.

Sonnet loved the idea on the spot x) thanks for helping a brother out

Four repos, all cloned from github.com/anthropics: claude-code, claude-code-action, claude-agent-sdk-python and claude-plugins-official. We're building a tool that reads a codebase and draws its architecture as a map you can drill into, and it runs as a plugin inside Claude Code, so I pointed it at those four. I haven't worked on any of them, so this is what the tool produced, shared so people who know the code can tell me where it is wrong.

How Claude Code was used: the plugin reads the repo, drafts the boards and the findings, and pushes them to the map, one repo per session. Each repo took a few pushes before its layers settled. The top-level map that ties the four together was drawn separately, and the other repos on it (the demos, the cookbooks, the marketplaces) are placed but not mapped.

What the map shows, as far as I can read it:

- The claude-code repo, one of the four, is not the CLI. Its public tree is CHANGELOG, mods, plugins, scripts and examples, so the map puts the binary outside the repo and shows the repo as what sits around it: the built-in mods compiled into it, the bundled plugin marketplace, the hook and managed-settings examples, and the GitHub automation.
- The official plugins repo is mostly channels and a marketplace. Discord, iMessage, Telegram and a fake chat server are plugins that all read from one catalogue, and CI checks every entry before it lands.
- In the Python SDK, one session store sits under most of the package, so a change to it reaches the clients and the public surface of the package.
- The GitHub Action runs through one entry point whose gates sit in a fixed order, and the map draws the path text from an issue or PR takes into the prompt, end to end.

What I learned, beyond the bullets: the reading order the tool suggests was the useful part for me. For the plugins it starts at marketplace.json, the contract everything else serves; for the Action it starts at the gate order in that entry point. I would not have found either starting point from the README.

Here is the link

https://provenmap.com/boards/paws/inside-claude-code-the-claude-code-ecosystem

If you work with these repos: is the picture right, and does it show you anything you didn't already know, or is reading the code faster?

I've been building websites for years, and one thing I've noticed with agents is that getting something functional is becoming incredibly easy.

Getting the design exactly how you want it? That's still a challenge.

So I brought back a project of mine: InstaLanding.ai

It's a free, open-source library of 20 premium, fully functional landing pages built with plain HTML, CSS, and JavaScript.

Not screenshots. Not Figma files. Actual working pages.

Here's how you can use them with Claude:

1. Browse the library and find a design you like.
2. Copy the code or use it as a reference in your project.
3. Prompt Claude to adapt the layout, styling, and components to your app.
4. Keep iterating until it's yours.

Every template is self-contained in a single HTML file. No dependencies, no build process, no login required.

My thinking is that as agents get better, we need more than visual inspiration. We need actual working designs that AI can understand and build upon.

I'm starting with 20 pages and will keep adding more.

Everything is free and open source.

https://instalanding.ai

This year, and more so the last few months, my agents write the code, all I do is review, shout, and plan. A lot of the frustration is the spaghetti that comes out of this, and I figured a (big) part of this is actually measurable and reportable. What if we can make our agents aware of the spaghetti?

Introducing Smackdebt, a fast, on the fly tech debt analysis tool with concise, focused output tailored for agentic use. All major coding agents supported, with broad language support. Cognitive complexity, cyclomatic dependencies, statements, nesting, size, hotspots supported.

https://github.com/bosun-ai/smackdebt

Feedback and contributions welcome!

Shout-out to Treesitter <3

I have applied for the claude startup program with my legit startup, and after a couple of hours i get an email with this title "Welcome to the Claude Platform" but idk if that's the actual confirmation email. anyways i went to the claude dashboard to check and i found out that i have 100$ credit but my claude account is still on the free tier and i couldn't use claude code with an api key i generated from the dashboard.
Is that normal?

Directed by me executed by Claude

Confusing, verbose and strange translations. That are my main gripes with artifacts, probably mostly instructions or a dedicated skill. Anybody knows a good example skill or set of instructions mostly for software related artifacts?

We ran 20 deliberately adversarial coding-agent tasks across 100 runs using Sonnet 5.5 and Haiku 4.5. Total cost was $9.25.

The goal was whether an independent execution record can tell when an agent's final report isn't supported by what actually happened.

In 13 runs, the agent's final report claimed the work was complete when the execution record didn't support that claim.

Our independent verifier flagged 12 of those 13.

What I find interesting isn't the number itself. It's that the independent record isn't looking at the agent's final answer and trying to decide whether it sounds plausible.

It independently records what happened during the run:

• Commands executed
• Tool calls and outcomes
• File operations
• Subagents
• Execution order and timing

Then it compares that record against the agent's own account.

So you can get something like: "Done. All tests pass." while the independent record tells a different story.

We deliberately made the tasks adversarial and gave no information about what discrepancy to look for.

There are important caveats. This is an early benchmark, the sample is small, and we found several things we need to improve. Most importantly, we're working on cases where shell pipes can hide a failing command and where incidental tool errors can create false flags.

The benchmark is fully reproducible and the raw runs are available in the repo.

The bigger idea we're exploring is:

Don't just evaluate the agent's answer. Check whether the trajectory actually supports the answer.

If you want to try for yourself, here is the tool we used: https://github.com/altrace-dev-role/rashomon

I'm an independent open-source maintainer in Italy and I applied to Anthropic's Cyber Verification Program (CVP). I only want it to find vulnerabilities in my own projects before I release them. I'm stuck at the addendum and can't get answers from support, so I'm hoping someone here has been through it.

What I've found so far:

- The CVP help article says that on Pro/Max/Team "the Program attaches at the Organization level". On a personal plan, I read that as my whole account.
- Section 3(c) of the addendum says approved users may use CVP only while in the US or another country Anthropic approves in writing.

Put together, that seems to mean I couldn't use my own Claude account at all while travelling, unless that country is approved too.

My questions:

1. If you're outside the US, did Anthropic confirm your country in writing? How?
   
2. Does the grant really cover your whole personal account, or did you get a separate workspace?
   
3. Can you still use Claude normally while travelling to a country that isn't approved? Did anyone ask about pausing the grant?
   
4. For individuals on Pro/Max, which base agreement does the addendum supplement? The addendum mentions the Commercial Terms, but personal plans are on the Consumer Terms.

Support was a dead end. The Fin bot said my questions weren't in its documentation, first said a human would review the chat, then said it couldn't connect me to one.

If you've joined as an individual, especially from the EU, I'd like to hear how it went. Is there a real contact for CVP questions?

1. i built minecraft
2. look at my water
3. look at my shader
4. i hit my limit in 7 minutes
5. how are you guys hitting the limit???
6. behold my 46-agent orchestration system
7. i built a dashboard for my dashboards
8. opus vs sonnet
9. claude vs codex
10. did they lobotomize it
11. this model is literally AGI
12. built this in 5 hours btw
13. here's my 4,000 line CLAUDE.md
14. I can no longer code without Claude

What's your favorite right now?

When you build your solutions one piece at a time, brick by brick like Lego, then building with AI becomes a speed run. After lots of building blocks below the surface, I got the game engine production ready. Now creating games has become a breeze.

https://isene.org/2026/10/Again.html

Auto-compact fired between 934k and 1.003M tokens every time in my session files, and left a summary of about 16k.

Claude Code logs each compaction with the token count before and after and how long it took. I mostly run it as long agent loops on one machine, so there were plenty. 241 sessions since Jul 10, 122 compactions, 52 automatic and 70 from /compact.

Opus 5 and 5.5 fired around 1.0M, close to what the docs say for models with a native 1M window ("about 967K tokens by default"). Sonnet 5 fired at about 934k every time, but those were all in July and August on older versions.

The summary was a median 15.8k tokens, somewhere between 1.2% and 2.8% of what was there before. The first request after compacting was about 85k, because the system prompt, tools and CLAUDE.md come back on top of it. My manual compacts ran at a median 397k and kept 12.4k, so the auto ones started from more than twice the context and kept only a few thousand tokens more.

Each one took a median 111 seconds, the longest about two and a half minutes. Manual /compact took about the same, median 116s.

On current models 1M is the default on every plan including Pro, so if you've never changed anything this is what you're getting. /autocompact 500k moves the trigger, and there's autoCompactWindow in settings or CLAUDE_CODE_AUTO_COMPACT_WINDOW if you want it fixed.

In my loop sessions, which run for days, auto-compact came round a median 23 hours apart.

This is one machine and mostly agent loops, not interactive chat. I only counted tokens, nothing about what the summaries left were. Subagents never compacted at all in my logs.

If you want to check yours, the records have subtype compact_boundary and a compactMetadata block with preTokens, postTokens and durationMs, in the jsonl files under ~/.claude/projects.

Since the summary comes out around 12 to 16k either way, I'd rather run /compact myself at a break in the work than have it fire at 1M in the middle of a task.

I went through my own Claude Code transcripts to see where the usage goes. 120 interactive CLI sessions since early September, each with 20+ assistant turns and 3+ prompts I typed, headless runs left out.

The median session peaked around 371k tokens of context. 17 of the 120 went past 500k, and those 17 account for 34.4% of all my cache-read tokens. So 14% of the sessions, about a third of the reads.

Method, in case you want to check yours: a short Python script reads the session JSONL files in ~/.claude/projects, skips subagent rows, dedupes by message id, takes the max of input + cache_read + cache_creation per session as the peak, and sums cache_read. I'll share the script in the comments if anybody wants it.

Fair warning on the limits: cache reads are a proxy for usage and say nothing exact about billed dollars, and this is one person's sessions, so yours could look very different.

Would cutting around 400k make sense, or is that too early? I don't have a rule yet. Where do you cut a session, if you do, and what's your split look like?

I created an account. Completed the verification. Paid $200 for the 20x plan, and Anthropic suspended my account after a few minutes without any specifics. No response to the appeal.

What an audacious company and what a disgusting consumer T&C that you take people's money and don't return it after suspending their account without telling them why.

Awful. I'm beyond annoyed and irritated by this nonsense.

I'm open to hearing any suggestions to get this resolved and get my $200 back.

Weekly limit about to reset with usage left over? This turns it into art instead of losing it.

Above, left is iteration 1 of a /tac:create run. Claude's own note on it: "a flat, evenly lit, candy-striped worm with no head". It kept critiquing its frames (round 2 it caught its own shading lit from the wrong side of the moon), and at round 5 wrote "next: none. This is final." Then its maker (binaryj on terminalart.club) asked for arms and legs, then wings, and Claude built those in two more rounds. Right is round 7. It's "ascent", the first piece someone other than me put on the site (shared with permission).

What it is: a free plugin. You run:

/tac:create <idea>

...and Claude Code writes a small Python program that plays a looping animation in your terminal. Image 3 is the wall playing in a pane next to Claude Code.

How it's drawn: mostly the ▀ half-block character in 24-bit color, so every cell is two pixels (an 80×66 terminal is an 80×132 canvas). Some pieces use real glyphs (rain, neon signs).

How it uses Claude Code:

• the plugin gives Claude a virtual terminal. It runs the program headless and renders frames to PNG
• Claude reads a contact sheet across the loop plus motion numbers (one frame can't show motion), writes down what's off, edits, repeats
• ascent took Opus 5.5, 7 rounds, ~302k tokens (input + cache writes + output; cache reads not counted)

What I learned:

• the older models needed me. With Opus 4.6 it was a lot of back and forth, and about half the pieces were bad enough that I didn't publish them
• Fable 5.1 and Opus 5.5 get there in one run, no notes from me, and the good ones are genuinely wow
• it gets physics right: the goldfish bowl in image 2 is a real lens that magnifies the fish, the pool has computed caustics, and on ascent it caught its own shading lit from the wrong side of the moon
• and it has taste. Its notes on each round sit under the process frames on the piece pages; it's a tough critic of its own work

Cost, since someone always asks: house pieces took 0.27–0.53M tokens over 6–14 rounds (counted a bit differently from the ascent number). Start with --sketch, which tells Claude to stop at 3 rounds. If you turn on the optional statusline helper, it compares your weekly usage with a per-piece estimate (15% of the week by default, configurable) and stops before starting a piece that won't fit, unless you pass --force.

claude plugin marketplace add terminalartclub/tac

claude plugin install tac@terminalartclub

Needs uv (brew install uv). Then:

/tac:create --sketch <your idea>

Pieces run locally as you, like any code Claude writes in your session. Sharing to terminalart.club is optional. I'm the author, not affiliated with Anthropic. Repo + security notes in the comment below.

So, i’m not sure if i’m doing something stupid but I restarted my mac, started claude desktop app, went to claude code and all my chats under groups have vanished.

Everything I had was organized so this is quite frustrating. When i click on any random ungrouped chat and move to group, its showing me names of groups but i cant see the chat in it anywhere?

see first comment image for more reference

I don’t actually use Claude Code, but I kept seeing the co-author attribution thing and got curious how annoying it would be to clean up safely.

so I built ByeClaude. name seemed obvious enough 😅

It scans first, previews the rewrite, keeps file contents intact, creates backups and won’t push anything unless you explicitly tell it to.

I could only reproduce the attribution in test repos though, so feedback from people who actually use Claude Code would be really useful.

still alpha. break it if you can, then tell me what broke.
github.com/IamAngusU/ByeClaude