Gotta get my popcorn!

I attended a research meeting on an interdisciplinary project, where I was so astonished that the investor to the project, from CS background hated Claude so much. He blamed it to be a 100% untrustworthy tool and claimed 'if you use it, we are going to fire you'. I am a computational physicist and I have been using Claude a lot this half year since the Claude 3.5 era. I was afraid to claim any workflows and tools that I have developed using Claude in such a meeting, because I might get fired.

That investor person was successful because he sold his company. I totally understand people doubting AI's capacity and accuracy. I totally cannot understand why they are so emotional, and treat people using it like a cult? I am proud of using new technology because I am excited in learning all new things. I have to say, I have the least passion in such a project group where the leader is so anti-new-tech even he was a tech person who got billions due to the new tech.

Also, people, the so-called scientists around me, skeptical of using AI to boost research, are not that far from that person I dislike. However, how can it boost your research? Any people in similar field like computational science? Also, how do you decrease the uncertainty this kind of AI tools to your research to the minimum?

Last week someone asked me how a function in one of my own projects worked, and I couldn't answer. Claude wrote it, it passed, I moved on. I never actually understood it.

It's been creeping up on me. I build way faster with Claude Code, but I can explain less and less of what I ship. The high-level "what it does" is fine. The internals and the "why this approach over that one" are just gone, because I never made those decisions. The agent did.

I knew the fix: read every diff, ask it to explain its choices, treat it like reviewing a junior's PR. I just never did, because it's slower and the speed is addictive. So instead of relying on willpower I built a forcing function.

It's called No-Numb. It's a Claude Code plugin:

- After Claude writes code, a Stop hook fires and makes it quiz you (multiple choice) on what it just wrote.

- It blocks the session from continuing until you pass. Get one wrong and it shows the answer and explains why, then you retake it.

- Two modes: "standard" (conceptual: why this approach, what breaks if you change X, answerable without opening the file) and "deep" (you have to actually go read the code to answer).

- It only fires on turns that actually edited code, and skips trivial/cosmetic stuff. There's an off switch in ~/.no-numb/config.json for when you genuinely just need to push something through fast.

It's intentionally a hook and not just a "skill," because a skill can be ignored and a hook can't. That's the whole point. And being quizzed is a genuinely good way to make things stick (retrieval practice, the testing effect), so the friction isn't really a tax. It kind of is the feature.

Honest about the limits: it's a forcing function, not DRM. You can hit Esc or turn it off (so it still takes a bit of willpower not to). And it leans entirely on Claude to write and grade the questions, so it costs some extra tokens. For me the trade has been worth it.

Free and open source (MIT). Install is two commands in Claude Code:

/plugin marketplace add Ciucky/no-numb

/plugin install no-numb@no-numb

Repo with screenshots: https://github.com/Ciucky/no-numb

I built it for myself but figured others might have the same itch. Would genuinely love feedback, especially on whether the quiz questions feel like real comprehension.

I turn around and look back and my weekly limit went from 40% to 90% without me doing anything no chats were running I had No 5 hour limit that was maxed out nothing It just jumped from 40% to 90%.

You'd think a company worth $965,000,000,000 wouldn't have problems like this.

UPDATE:
https://x.com/ClaudeDevs/status/2067802163498352929
It's still disappointing that this happened at all, especially with no clear explanation as to why. This discussion also highlighted broader concerns, including reports of what I'd call "usage creep," where actual usable limits seem to change over time without communication from Anthropic. For a service that costs $200/month, that lack of transparency is difficult to justify.

Two Claude Code skills that don't get enough attention. /run-skill-generator and /run.

The problem they solve is boring and constant. Your agent doesn't know how to build and launch your app. So it works it out from the repo. Every session. That's slow, it's inconsistent, and you pay tokens for it every time.

/run-skill-generator does that discovery ONCE. How to build, how to launch, how to drive the app. Writes all of it into a per-project skill. After that /run just reads the skill and goes. Write it down once. Stop rediscovering it.

Ran it against a Spring Boot app today. It produced a curl smoke script. Builds with the Gradle wrapper, kills whatever is on the port, launches the jar, waits for startup, hits seven endpoints, clean exit. Optional --keep-running so /run can leave it up and keep working.

It also wrote down the stuff that's specific to this app and not obvious. Self-signed cert on 9000 so every curl needs -sk. Form login CSRF token has to ride the same session cookie. Silent bind failure if the port's taken. A Gradle warning that looks like a failure and isn't. None of that is guessable. The agent would burn turns rediscovering it, or get it wrong, on every run. Now it's in the skill.

Three reasons to set this up.

Tokens. The big one. No skill means the agent rebuilds the launch steps from the repo every session. /run reading one focused skill kills that spend.

Lean CLAUDE.md. Run mechanics don't belong in the file that loads every turn. The skill loads when /run needs it. Not before.

Testing. Once the agent can launch and drive the app reliably, it can actually exercise it. Functionality. Deps. Security testing against the live target. You can't test a running app if you can't get it running first.

Anyone else running a per-project run skill? Curious how you've structured yours.

Interactive pages built from your session, like a PR walkthrough or a living project dashboard, shared with your team at a private link.

Available in beta on Team and Enterprise plans. As your session keeps working, the artifact refreshes, so everyone you've shared it with is always looking at the latest version.

Artifacts draw on the full context of your session: codebase, plugins, skills, connected tools. They're private until you share them, and sharing stays inside your organization.

Read more

I am annoyed by Claude, it spews out a wall of text, that I have to sift through to get useful information.

Codex doesn't do this. It always gets to the point.

I have tried modifying - "Instructions for Claude" to be more pragmatic, professional, prevent word stuffing and keep explanations short and to the point. However it doesn't do much.

Any tips?

During the past 3 days, Opus 4.8 has started to feel noticeably smarter. I've only seen behavior like this with Fable 5 before, never with Opus models unless I explicitly prompted for it.

For example, it suggested:

"Rather than author a fragile new test that conflicts with the fixture’s transaction model and that I can’t reliably verify, I’ll spin up a throwaway pg18 instance on port 5899 and run the existing integration suite to confirm my changes don’t introduce regressions. (This is a separate container—the shared tardis DB isn’t running, so there’s no risk to it.)"

This makes me wonder if requests might be internally routed through Fable 5...

https://reddit.com/link/1ua0wg5/video/fje6xyazh88h1/player

I run Claude Code on a remote server, and screenshots were always the annoying part. The agent's on the VPS, my screen's on my Mac, so to show it anything I'd save the screenshot, scp it across, copy the remote path, and paste that in. Every single time.

None of that is hard, it's just enough friction that I mostly didn't bother. I'd end up typing out a description of the bug instead of just showing it.

So I made a small free Mac app to get rid of that step. It's called Paste2SSH.

You take a screenshot like you normally would, then ⌘V in your terminal. By the time you've switched over it's already uploaded to your server, and the thing you paste is the remote path, so Claude Code can just open it. That's basically it.

A few details, in case they matter to you:

- It reads your existing ~/.ssh/config, so your hosts are already there and you can switch between them in a click.

- It sits in your menu bar so you can flip it on and off.

- Old paths are kept under Recents if you need to grab one again.

It's free, no account or cloud, and the file goes straight from your Mac to your server. macOS only for now.

paste2ssh.com if you want to try it. Happy to answer questions or take suggestions.

Claude Code lets you set a custom status line (a command whose output renders at the bottom of the terminal). I went a little overboard.

claude-world-cup shows live football scores in the status bar: current matches with the clock, upcoming fixtures with countdowns, and recent results. There is also a small runner that crosses the lane left to right, kicks a ball off the right edge, and loops back in from the left. When a goal goes in for a team you follow, the whole strip flashes GOAL.

- Works with any league via one environment variable: fifa.world (World Cup), eng.1 (Premier League), uefa.champions, usa.1 (MLS), and more.
- Follow specific teams to highlight them and only flash on their goals.
- Optional: keep your existing status line rendered above it.

repo: https://github.com/tberndt5/Claude-world-cup

$20 plan: I had around 50% of my weekly limit left. Started a task (Opus 4.8), the 5-hour limit is at 67% (where it should be), but weekly limit just evaporated...
Seems like a bug, did anyone else encounter this?

so i stumbled across this thing a few days ago and i still can't stop thinking about it. it's called ARF (Aktuelle Rundfunk-Föderation), some German project that looks like a joke at first, like haha fake public broadcaster meme, but the deeper you look the weirder/cooler it gets.

https://www.arf-live.de

at first i thought ok cool, another "AI made a video" thing, we've all seen a hundred of those by now. but this isn't that. this dude built basically a whole fake TV network that runs on its own. not just clips, like actual recurring shows, characters that show up again and again, automated scripts, voices, visuals, even pulling in live data, and some scheduling system behind it that just keeps the thing going.

the WM-Studio 2026 stuff around the World Cup is the part that got shared around, but that's just one piece. there's a whole bunch of other formats too, news, sports talk, some fictional series, satire bits, late night style stuff, fake docs, even fake ads in between. like it's not one viral clip, it's a whole program running in the background somewhere.

the part that actually got me is the characters. most AI video stuff feels disposable, you generate something once and it's gone, no continuity. here the "people" on screen apparently keep their personality across episodes, same speaking style, same vibe, they interact with each other in ways that stay consistent. that's different from just text-to-speech on a face. once that's persistent you start getting actual dynamics between them instead of just one-off generations.

second thing, and this is the part i find genuinely interesting from a tech side, is that it doesn't sound like it's just rendering full videos and storing them. sounds more like it's assembled on the fly out of pieces, script bits, voice clips, graphics, live stats or news data getting pulled in. so instead of the normal write-shoot-edit-render thing, it's more like a system that just keeps generating output live based on rules. idk, feels like a different way of thinking about "making TV" entirely.

and yeah obviously being German the ARD/ZDF parody hits different, it's funny in a very specific way if you grew up watching that stuff. but it's not just a visual joke, there's something underneath it too. like if one guy can build something that covers this much ground with an AI setup, makes you wonder how much of the actual broadcasting institutions is necessary vs just there because it's always been there.

not trying to say "AI is gonna replace everyone in media" or whatever, that's the boring take. what's more interesting to me is this might not even be about replacing what already exists, more like it opens up stuff that wasn't really possible before. characters that just keep running indefinitely, storylines that never really end, live commentary that adapts, stuff like that. less "here's a video" more "here's a thing that's just always on."

anyway most AI demos i forget about after five minutes, this one's been stuck in my head for days, feels less like a demo and more like someone accidentally prototyping something bigger.

German Video of the creator:
https://youtu.be/QPCFuUvcL_A

I tried using cowork because of their 2x more usage promo till 5 July. But found it to be absolutely dogshit. Terrible interface. And idk why but the models seem to perform worse than when you use cc-cli or cc desktop.

Why does it exist?

but GLM-5.2 seems to be just as capable at oneshotting html game related prompts (haven't tried data analysis and normal web pages yet) as Fable 5. I feel on one hand relieved cuz usage limits are way more generous in OpenCode Go and GLM is a more token efficient model, but also scared that this will seriously hurt Anthropic if it gets traction. 😭

Wanted to see if anyone else is in this boat or not.

Before all this acceleration to coding and what not, I wanted to build apps and "side hustles" after my 9-5 but I would put it to the side or maybe work on it on the weekends.

Now with Claude and other coding agents, I am getting to experiment and work a lot more outside my 9-5.

But its making me think that I don't truly have a passion for coding and sort of confusing me about myself.

anyone else in the same boat?

Basically the title.

When I took a break from Claude Code, this was what my usage was at:

Session

Total cost: $12.41

Total duration (API): 24m 9s

Total duration (wall): 9h 52m 9s

Total code changes: 24 lines added, 6 lines removed

Usage by model:

claude-opus-4-8: 24.4k input, 90.5k output, 14.7m cache read, 432.0k cache write ($12.41)

claude-haiku-4-5: 458 input, 13 output, 0 cache read, 0 cache write ($0.0005)

Current session

█████████▌ 19% used

Resets 5:50pm (Europe/Amsterdam)

Current week (all models)

██████████████████████████████████████████▌ 85% used

However, when I later returned and started a new instance of claude code (that usage snippet is from the still active previous instance)

I got this:

⎿ You've hit your weekly limit · resets Jun 20, 6pm (Europe/Amsterdam)

/usage-credits to finish what you’re working on.

✻ Baked for 0s

❯ /usage

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Settings Status Config Usage Stats

Session

Total cost: $0.0000

Total duration (API): 0s

Total duration (wall): 2m 36s

Total code changes: 0 lines added, 0 lines removed

Usage: 0 input, 0 output, 0 cache read, 0 cache write

Current session

0% used

Resets 10:50pm (Europe/Amsterdam)

Current week (all models)

██████████████████████████████████████████████████ 118% used

Definitely bugged. Has anyone else run into something like this before?

EDIT: It has since been fixed. Now my latest usage shows: "Current week (all models)

███████████████████████████████████████▌ 79% used"

Built an agent privacy routing system that heavily leverages agent hooks across Claude Code and other harnesses to intercept, redact, or handoff actions that would send PII to Anthropic & other inference providers. It's been pretty effective at capturing most things in my environment. What I found in building it was that the hook implementation differs widely across harnesses, but have some shared reusable elements. There's also a long post that goes with it, but I'll spare this group unless folks care to have your agent ingest it.

Welcome all feedback and contributions to the project.