2025-12-29 09:08:00
In Burger Town all citizens love hamburgers. There are two hamburger chains: McDoGood's and Burger Prince. The citizens happily enjoy these options, as they are both reliable, providing burgers at a consistent rate, and are different enough to give all citizens a sense of choice.
Not many people question why there are only two burger places, but some do. When people like this dig a little deeper, they may discover their own community of question-askers. In fact, there are quite a few of them; they just don't meet much in real life, as the town is big and not well organised.
These question-askers may eventually discover that there is a third alternative restaurant. This establishment is called Layers, and it can be found only in one location in a difficult-to-find underground parking lot. Layers burgers serves a reliable product, just like Burger Prince and McDoGood's do, but Layers has an additional twist: their burgers are healthier for the citizens than the competitors' are. Most people do not worry about eating healthy burgers, but for those who do, Layers has turned out to be an excellent third option.
There is a problem, however. Any new customer needs to fork out some additional cash for a Layers Pixel Token. This is a one-time cost, but many health-seekers who discover Layers turn back after discovering this extra cost. Additional to that, it isn't all that easy to find the underground parking lot. Not having tried the Layers burger for themselves, these interested citizens have to rely on the assurances and directions from existing Layers enjoyers, and for some, that isn't compelling enough. This does not bother the Layers crew one bit, as their motto 'If not with us, then back to them (i.e. McDoGood's and Burger Prince)' reinforces. Layers employees are in many ways right, as hygiene and reliability are good across all three burger joints.
All of this would have created a nice balance of supply and demand in the town, were it not for the fact that smaller joints have begun to appear in similarly difficult-to-find places in the disorganised town. These, like Layers, also aim to serve healthy burgers to the populace, but because they are small, experimental affairs, they cannot deliver the level of hygiene and reliability that the three others can deliver. What's more, some of the employees of the alternative shacks are either unaware or deliberately vague about the lower health value of their products, when compared to Layers, which often ends up confusing interested citizens.
McDoGood's and Burger Prince have kept relatively quiet about these experimental joints, but Layers is vocal, adamant in their 'If not with us, then back to them' motto, arguing, understandably, that it would be better to return to of one of the two dominant (but less healthy) burger providers rather than risk the experimental joints.
Their reasons are valid and well-intended. After all, the aim should be to provide reliable, hygienic, and, in Layers' case, healthy burgers, and any deviance from that standard should be treated with caution, even if these experimental burger places essentially have the same goal in mind.
Layers suffers from one blind-spot. Being so entrenched in the business of providing reliable, hygienic and healthy burgers, they have forgotten what the world looks like to people who only know McDoGood's and Burger Prince.
To those people—and especially they who cannot afford a Layers' Pixel Token—the smaller experimental restaurants offer a taste of something different to the established DoGood/Prince duopoly. Eating at these places may not be totally risk-free, but many citizens have robust immune systems and can handle the occasional lower quality meal; for most this does not dramatically impact their lives. But for many, the little restaurants are an eye-opener to the fact that there is more to burger eating than McDoGood's and Burger Prince, and by exploring these smaller, less reliable restaurants, they might one day truly understand for themselves what is so good about Layers, and why the Pixel Token is totally worth the price.
I am a citizen of Burger Town. I've tasted the duopoly and I know about some of the smaller joints and I have even paid the Pixel token and tasted for myself why Layers burgers are so good. Burger Town citizens often ask me for advice, knowing I've tasted all the options. What do I tell them?
2025-12-29 04:25:00
Article by suliman
The indie web is a place for those of us who do not feel welcome elsewhere in the digital sphere to find our own space. It's the natural habitat for those seeking freedom in their self-expression, from site design to overbearing moderation that frequently punishes the marginalized. But what happens when those homey spaces we create become home to the same type of people that alienated us from that “elsewhere”? This is a question that we'll have to contend with more often here on Bear as more of them find their way to us. In particular, what I would like to discuss here is whether the AI grift has grassroots support on the platform, seeing as blog posts about it are as rare as sand on a beach.
What got me to ponder this question were trending posts by one AI prophet and chemical hygienist (the same person) and another X-frequentee and Grok user making clear that their ideas may not be as fringe on this platform (anymore?) on grounds of their upvote count. Granted, the post that made Karpathy the designated Bear Blog AI prophet in my head was presumably crossposted to Hacker News which caused it to blow up. The “Chemical Hygiene” post with its fraction of the upvotes leads me to believe it acquired them organically on Bear Blog. Whatever the source of the upvotes, these two bloggers’ rhetoric—as my chosen examples—is increasingly encroaching all over Trending. So let's see what others, who I picked based on their posts’ popularity as well as their authority within our blogging niche, have to say about this technology and its propagation.
For starters, it is worth noting that we don’t know for sure who is upvoting which posts, whether they use the platform themselves or are just lurking, making it hard to base analysis on more than intuition. Nevertheless, we can infer based on the magnitude of certain posts’ upvote counts that their popularity likely didn’t entirely originate from within our community, but from elsewhere. In i'm tired of hacker news slop, Pirate said:
I'm not mad at the people who post something tech-related and it happened to get cross posted as was the case with Ava some time back. I'm talking about the posts that are primarily optimized for the hacker news [sic] platform. It never fails too, it's always glazing AI/LLMs.
He is not the only one offended by the use or discussion of AI in an uncritical way. Some even wonder who either the LLM output or LLM discussion is really for. In his bewilderment, Pablo wrote:
Do you not enjoy the pride that comes with attaching your name to something you made on your own? It's great!
No, don't use it [an LLM] to fix your grammar, or for translations, or for whatever else you think you are incapable of doing. Make the mistake. Feel embarrassed. Learn from it. Why? Because that's what makes us human!
But talk is cheap, you might say. What happens when you’re struggling and your creativity is leading you nowhere? You might be desperate enough to hit the chatbot! As Ava argues, you might receive “some reassurance through its sycophancy, a chance to sort my thoughts a bit, and a level of feedback I can’t get from people” for one reason or another. But do you, as the person aspiring to create, want real feedback or just the simulation of one? Exequiel walks us through what is tempting many to pick the former:
The artifact is increasingly treated as an interlocutor rather than a tool. In a certain way, the Cartesian cogito seems to be subverted: to speak supplants to think as the proof of being.
… What produces effects is a linguistic performance that simulates dialogue. … What's striking is not so much what AI is, but what it appears to be, and what that appearance triggers in its users.
While the two that prompted me to write this post may choose simulating self-reflection over experiencing it, as expressed in their promoting and using AI infused software, many bloggers on Bear are frequently expressing their frustration with AI’s encroachment in various corners of their lives. While Ava weighs the dangers of AI in hiring processes, Mo is frustrated by inexperienced programmers using AI to sabotage established code submission processes. In addition to the push of AI in areas where the cited authors (minus the first two) agree that they are are overstepping some lines, Exequiel laments the loss of self-expression by letting AI filter our language to become “good”; whether we choose to run ChatGPT over our writings to fix syntactic errors or a platform performs that action by default as in LinkedIn’s case. In their own words, they call the product of AI sanitization a “post-human corporate theatre”.
To conclude, it’s apparent that these authors whose cited posts that have topped the Trending page (an interpreted expression of popular agreement) that AI-uncritical posts are not so welcome on Bear Blog. What is even more evident is that AI won’t replace us bloggers any time soon, for our reason for sharing and receiving does not lie in valuing the act itself. Quoting Herman: “We like to see into the experience of others, understand how they think, and develop (sometimes para-social) relationships with these writers.” What we do brings us joy because of the human aspect of communicating our interior and making it part of our exterior.
We do not need voices among us that propagate ideas that endanger or devalue our reason for creating. Least of all do we need to be turning Bear Blog into another social media site plagued by knee-jerking and hype cycles. It is gatekeeping to reject these people from our communities. However, not all gatekeeping is equal. When you escape the digital equivalent of terrorists, you don’t just welcome them in your spaces as they flea the aforementioned “elsewhere” for their own reasons. You need to reject them to keep the “safe space” safe. Importantly, this is not a call to action for the central authority of moderation to “shadow-ban” the two I linked to among others. This is more so for us to become aware of these types and reject them as a community before they co-opt our spaces and dilute our sense of self.
Thus, what I would like to ask of you as the reader is to speak your piece. If you are discontented with these tech bros overrunning us, make yourself heard. Reject them. If not, well, that’s your choice.
2025-12-29 01:41:22
Reading Carlos’ reply to my post from yesterday made me realize something. Or rather, remember something. I can’t mix blog.
Whenever I try mixing my blog posts with other types of content, like a photo log or status updates, I get lost. I’ve tried it with both Bear and Micro.blog, and it always plays out the same way. It’s fun for a while, then it gets too messy.
When I say “too messy”, that’s just how I feel. I’ve never heard anyone say that about any of my blogs, and I never feel that way when reading others. I actually like blogs with mixed content.
But for me, it just doesn’t work.
When I’ve written about this in the past, I’ve often received kind and encouraging comments like “it’s your blog, do what you want”, “don’t take things too seriously”, “mix all you want”, and so on.
And it’s true. I agree. But I can’t do it, and that’s fine.
I don’t see it as a dilemma or a limitation. It’s not a problem, it’s just how it works for me. For you, it might be the complete opposite.
I think this is another good example of why it rarely works to pick “the right tool” based on other people’s opinions, something I mentioned in yesterday’s post.
Someone thinks a platform is great because it’s versatile. Someone else thinks it’s too complicated. Someone loves a tool for its simplicity. Someone else thinks it’s too limited.
There’s nothing wrong with reading reviews or pros and cons lists. They can be great inspiration. Just don’t treat them as ultimate truths.
The good thing is, whether you’re a mix blogger or not, there are blogging platforms out there for pretty much every need these days.
Happy blogging!
2025-12-28 10:18:00
My beautiful grandmother, who recently turned 92, has gone through hell over the last three to four months. She went from someone who has lived alone a good portion of her life (her husband died early), who walked one to two miles a day to the store with groceries, to church, the bank, and everywhere in between, to completely falling apart.
She has congestive heart failure and had a pacemaker put in a few years back. About four months ago, skin cancer on her head had to be scraped out, which resulted in what was essentially a softball-sized hole that was many inches deep in her head. My mom had to clean it twice per day, along with a nurse who came a few times a week. It was incredibly difficult for my mom and for my immediate family, as we all have decided to live close by over the years. When my mom or the nurse couldn’t do it, I would.
After she finally recovered from that, she just wasn’t the same. She was breathing heavily, with fluid building up in her lungs due to the congestive heart failure faster than before, which landed her back in the hospital for a couple of weeks. Again, incredibly difficult for her and for my immediate family, my mom, dad, sister, myself, and one of my cousins who lives about an hour away and has spent a considerable amount of time with her as well. We are essentially her caregivers (with my mom doing the most over the years), and we love her very much.
After a couple of weeks in the hospital, she was moved to a just-okay-but-pretty-depressing rehab facility about 30 minutes away. They did physical therapy with her and tried to get her used to her new reality using a walker and doing much less than she once could. When she was finally released, my mom spent many days and nights at the house taking care of her (Nana). My sister, dad, cousin, and I also spent a lot of time there. We hired a part-time nurse to help for a few hours most days, but it just wasn’t enough.
One morning, she walked to the bathroom, completely passed out, and fell forward off the toilet and landed straight on her head. When she tried to stand up, she fell back and cracked the back of her head open (somehow slicing it down the middle as well), creating an incredibly large wound (and fractured her wrist). She was rushed to Zuckerberg Hospital about an hour later, where the trauma unit spent over five hours doing their best to stitch her back up.
During that time, she completely lost consciousness while my sister, mom, and the surgeon were in the room, and they were convinced they had lost her. Somehow, she came back. She was confused, but okay.
After the surgeons did the best they could, think softball-sized openings again just shy of the brain, that had to be closed, the nurse let her go to the bathroom. During that visit, my grandmother again passed out and began to fall forward. Her eyes were wide open, but nobody was there. My mom was in the bathroom and grabbed her (likely saved her life), while my sister and I rushed in to help hold her up. Thankfully, she woke back up.
Now, after a week at Zuckerberg Hospital, she’s spent the last few days back at the same depressing rehab center, sharing a room with another patient. The food is gross and she won’t eat it. The patient next to her is coughing nonstop, and these facilities are prone for pneumonia. My grandmother is still mostly all there mentally, which makes it even harder. She’s sad and depressed.
She doesn’t read much or watch much TV. She moved here from Malta at a very young age, and although she speaks English, you have to keep things simple when talking to her. Reading has always been tough, but she does her best. She doesn’t have many hobbies to pass the time. When she was healthy, her life was filled with hanging out with friends and family, walking daily, Church, and taking care of her house with her 50+ plants and trees.
Now the time has come for her to leave rehab, and there are only a few options. The barometer for the decision should be simple, treat someone the way you would want to be treated in the same situation.
The options are:
At the moment, option five was decided from the sisters, and it's not the decision I would have made. Many people who move into these not-so-nice assisted living facilities only make it a handful of months. They stop eating the gross food (my grandmother already showed resilience of the food at the rehab center), don’t get out of bed much, and ultimately lose the will to live.
I’m incredibly grateful that I decided to leave Austin, Texas in 2024. I wanted to be within a 10-minute drive of my immediate family and my grandmother. I’m so thankful that I get to spend as much time with her as I do.
The biggest takeaways for me from all of this are:
To my immediate family and one of my cousins, I’m very proud of the love and support we’ve shown over the many years with Nana. I pray she lives a very long time.
2025-12-28 07:26:00
✱ Contemplating...
<system-reminder>
This post is a follow-up to my post from July'25 - My Experience With Claude Code After 2 Weeks of Adventures. If you are new to Claude Code or just want a quick refresh, I am once again asking you to go through it. It covers some lore, my workflow back then and then 80-90% of the Claude Code standard workflow. You may choose to skip the intro although I recommend you read it. Lore is important man.
A short recap - we had covered CLAUDE.md, scratchpad, using task tool (now sub-agents), the general plan + execute workflow, tips for context window management, Sonnet 4 vs Opus 4 (not relevant now), using shortcuts like ! and using Shift + ? to show shortcuts, memory basics, /resume to restart conversation and short discussion on custom commands.
</system-reminder>
I got a great response on my Opus 4.5 vibe-check tweets and still recieving good feedback on my July blog post (despite being somewhat poorly written). This shows there's clearly a demand for in-depth resources around Claude Code.
I noticed that lots of people, both technical and many non-technical or less hands-on people i.e technically-lite people have started to try Claude Code (CC). CC is more of a general agent - you can use it for tasks other than coding as well - like making an excel invoice, data analysis, errands on your machine etc. And of course everything I talk about is by default meant for coding too.
Karpathy sensei captured the essence of a general agent beautifully way in his 2025 LLM in a review article - "it's a little spirit/ghost that "lives" on your computer."
If you can learn even 3-4 ideas that help you with using Claude Code (or other tools like Codex/Gemini CLI/OpenCode) or improve your understanding of LLMs, it would be a win for me.
I don't want this post to be a prescription (map). My objective is to show you what is possible and the thought processes and simple things you can keep in mind to get the most out of these tools. I want to show you the map but also the territory.
Claude Code dominated the CLI coding product experience this year and all the CLI products like Codex, OpenCode, Amp CLI, Vibe CLI and even Cursor have heavily taken inspiration from it. This means learning how things work in Claude Code directly transfers to other tools both in terms of personal usage and production grade engineering.
Karpathy sensei posted this which broke the Twitter timeline. This led to a lot of discussion and there were some really good takes - some which I have written about too.
It's a reasonable crashout - the technology is evolving at a mindblowing pace and it's difficult to keep up for most of us and especially for senior folks and people with high quality standards. Nevertheless, I think if you are reading this post, it's scary but also exciting time to build stuff at speeds never possible before.
Instead of thinking in terms of "keeping up", a better framing is how can I improve myself with help of these tools i.e augment.
In my opinion, there are 3 components to augment yourself:
Stay updated with tooling - What Karpathy sensei mentioned. Use these tools regularly and keep up with releases. I have been doing this regularly; it can be draining but I enjoy the process and I have the incentive that it helps me at my job. For the technically lite, even weekly/monthly updates would help.
Upskill in your domain - It's a great time to spread both vertically (domain depth) and horizontally (adjacent areas). The more you know, the better you can prompt - converting unknown unknowns to known unknowns. Experience builds judgement and taste - that's what differentiates professional devs from vibe-coders. Since implementation is much faster now, you can spend more time on taste refinement.
For software engineering folks, this might mean getting better at good practices, system design, planning - where more thinking is involved. Ask more questions, run more experiments (since you can iterate fast), spend more time on understanding requirements. Using good software engineering practices to create better feedback loops for LLMs (good naming, refactoring, docs, tests, typed annotations, observability etc.). Please don't forget to come back to my post lol but I liked Addy Osmani's take on this.
The idea is to let the LLM perform things with input, get output and see errors.
As an aside, getting better at articulating thoughts via writing helps. One may also try touch typing/writing using speech-to-text tools to operate faster.
This post will act as a guide for things Karpathy said but you'll need to play around, build intuition and achieve outcomes with help of these tools yourself. The good news is it's fun.
✱ Ruminating...
I am having a great time with Claude Code 2.0 since the launch of Opus 4.5 and it's been my daily driver since then. Before we go all lovey-dovey about Claude, I wanted to quickly go through the timeline and lore. I love yapping in my blog and I feel it's important to set the context here.
2025 saw release of many frontier models by OpenAI and Anthropic. Also, it's super under-talked but OpenAI actually caught up to Anthropic in code-generation capability - intelligence wise, context window effectiveness, instruction following and intent detection.
It's been a wild year and honestly speaking I got tired of trying out new releases by OpenAI every 2 weeks.
>no swe-bench-verified comparison
— sankalp (@dejavucoder) December 18, 2025
>no comparison against opus 4.5
>"we are topping in cybersecurity"
>mfw i realise i am the fucking eval https://t.co/4oDG3yj6CP pic.twitter.com/aUfJfwROCf
There have been several Open Source competitors like GLM-4.7, Kimi-K2, Minimax-2.1. The space is very competitive and there is definitely an audience that uses the cheaper priced but high performant Chinese models for low-medium difficulty tasks.
That said, I still think Anthropic/OpenAI lead over Chinese Frontier models. The latter have contributed more in terms of open-sourcing techniques like in the DeepSeek R1 paper and Kimi K2 paper earlier in the year.
(Note: I am talking with respect to personal coding usage, not production API usage for applications).
I was using Claude Code as my main driver from late June to early September. I cancelled my Claude Max (100 USD/month) sub in early September and switched to using OpenAI Codex as my main driver. Switch was driven by two factors -
claude code is more enjoyable as a product and has more features. i have always felt to try out more things related to automation in cc as compared to codex. once they drop a new iteration i would consider getting a max sub again if its better than gpt-5-codex
— sankalp (@dejavucoder) September 22, 2025
Anthropic also had tonne of API outages and at one point of time they had degradation due to inference bugs. This also was a major driver for several people to move to the next best alternative i.e Codex or GPT-5.1 on Cursor.
I was using Codex (main driver) and Cursor (never cancelled) until late October. Claude Sonnet 4.5 had released on 29th September along with Claude Code 2.0.. and I did take a 20 USD sub from another email account of mine to try it out (I had lots of prompting work and Claude models are my preferred choice) but GPT-5/GPT-5-codex were overall better despite being slow.
Sonnet 4.5's problem was fast and good but it would make many haphazard changes which would lead to bugs for me. In other words, I felt it to be producing a lot of slop in comparison to GPT-5.1/GPT-5.1-codex later.
Around October 30, Anthropic sent an email saying we are offering the 200 USD max plan to users who cancelled the subscription and obviously I took it.
chat please remind me to cancel after 28 days😂 pic.twitter.com/TSGidVJ2xo
— sankalp (@dejavucoder) October 29, 2025
My Claude Code usage was still minimal but on 24th November, they launched Opus 4.5 and I had 5 days to try out Opus 4.5. I used the hell out of it for my work and also wrote this highly technical blog with the help of it discovering several of its capabilities.
I had done a similar tweet when I had switched to GPT-5.1 which had gotten half the response of this one. This indicated to me that more people resonated with Opus 4.5 (at least on Twitter) back then. Also, many people were just not able to realise GPT-5.1's capabilities tbh.
Other than the above State of the Art at the coding benchmarks like SWE-bench-verified (code-generation), Tau Bench (agentic stuff), Opus 4.5 was faster, at-par in coding, super collaborative and good at communication. These factors led to my conversion. It had good vibes. More comparison points later in the post.
As I described in the screenshot, Opus 4.5 was roughly at same code-gen capability with GPT-5.1-Codex-Max.
Today, in my experience I think GPT-5.2-Codex exceeds Opus 4.5 in raw capability by a small margin. Still, Opus 4.5 has been my main driver since release.
I think first reason is it's faster and can do similar difficulty tasks in much lesser time than Codex. Also, it's overall a much better communicator and pair-programmer than Codex which can even ignore your instructions at times (and go and make changes). Opus has better intent-detection as well.
One nice-use case shown here by Thariq on creating a background async agent to explain changes to a non-technical person leveraging Claude's explanation abilities.
To further demonstrate the difference, here's a CC vs Codex comparison
For the same prompt, see the outputs. Codex is still a bit more concise while Claude matches my expectation. (It's worth mentioning that you can get Codex to write in more detail by adding something like reveal your thoughts in detail)
Codex always writes in nested bullets. Claude has a more conversational tone.
Another thing I want to highlight is the UI - Claude uses higher contrast text with bolder font weight, whereas Codex's text appears thinner and harder to read, with thinking traces shown in an even lighter shade which I find straining.
Because of being faster not only in terms of lesser thinking to perform task but throughput wise also, it unlocks much faster feedback loops for your tasks. This makes progress feel more visceral even though capability wise, GPT-5.1/Codex were at par even in November. The only downside with faster loop is if you are cautious, you end up micro-managing for long hours.
Opus 4.5 is a great writer and comes closest to humans so I have always preferred Claude models for customizing prompts.
I don't claim this but many people love Claude Opus 4.5 for it's personality and the way it talks - some referring to it as Opus 4.5 having soul. This trait was somewhat lesser in Sonnet 3.7, Sonnet 4, Opus 4, Opus 4.1 but it came back in Opus 4.5. Amanda Askell post-trained the soul into Claude haha.
I just want to confirm that this is based on a real document and we did train Claude on it, including in SL. It's something I've been working on for a while, but it's still being iterated on and we intend to release the full version and more details soon. https://t.co/QjeJS9b3Gp
— Amanda Askell (@AmandaAskell) December 1, 2025
Besides the model, obviously the Claude Code Product goes a long way to make things magical.
As a product it's a mile ahead of Codex in QoL features. The harness, prompts and the model make for a magical experience. The model is amazing but there is a massive amount of tasteful engineering that has gone into UX/UI and just the code/prompts to let Claude feel comfortable in the harness and make function calling accurate. We will explore this more in later sections.
Before we move ahead - my previous post somehow reached Hackernews #5 and I was facing allegations that my post was sponsored by Anthropic. I was like bro are you serious? Anthropic doesn't sponsor random users like me. Anthropic doesn't even think about me (meme.jpeg) besides from a user point of view.
Besides praise, I have been snarky, made fun of outages, made a lot of fun of Sonnet 4.5 slop. I have expressed what I have felt over time and it's led to good discourse on the timeline as well.
All this said, Claude Code has been one of the most enjoyable product experiences I have ever had. I am grateful and highly respect the engineering and research team behind it.
That's enough yapping. In the next few sections, I will talk about useful features that I didn't talk about in my previous blog and notable features introduced in the iterations from Claude 2.0 - 2.0.74.
currently using Claude Code for the first time, I can officially put "Technical-lite" on my resume now
— spor (@sporadica) December 11, 2025
I am assuming several technical-lite people are gonna read this. Few concepts to help comprehension later in the blog -
Context and Context window - Context refers to the input provided to the LLMs. This is usually text but nowadays models support image, audio, video.
More specifically, context is the input tokens. The context window refers to the maximum amount of tokens that an LLM can see and process at once during a conversation. It's like the model's working memory. Opus 4.5 has a 200K context window which is approximately 150,000 words.
Tool calling - Learn about tool calling. Here's a good resource. You know that LLMs can generate text but what if you want the LLM to perform an action - say draft an email or lookup the weather on the internet or just do google search. That's where tools come in. Tools are functions defined by the engineer that do these exact things. We define tools and we let the LLM know about it in the system prompt and it can decide which tool to call when you are chatting with it! Once the tool call i.e the action is performed, the results are relayed back to the LLM.
Agent - The simplest definition is an LLM that can pro-actively run tools to achieve a goal. For a more sophisticated definition, I like the one by Anthropic: "Agents, on the other hand, are systems where LLMs dynamically direct their own processes and tool usage, maintaining control over how they accomplish tasks." from Building Effective Agents.
"Agentic" - refers to the tool calling capabilities of the model - how pro-active, how accurate the tool calling is (detecting user's intent to perform the action, choosing the correct tool, knowing when to stop)
Harness/scaffolding - Sonnet 4.5/Opus 4.5 are the models. They need to be provided with lots of "scaffolding" / layers of code, prompts, tool calls and software packaging/environment to make them work in a semi-autonomous fashion. Note that Claude Code is not a harness, it's a product (think the TUI, integrations etc.). Claude Code has a harness.
✱ Processing...
Claude Code has had lots of AI features and quality of life improvements since July. Let's look at the ones that I found to be useful. You can see all changes in the Changelog.
Thinking toggle - Tab to toggle thinking on/off was a good feature. They changed it to Alt/Option + Tab recently but there's a bug and it does not work on Mac. Anyways CC defaults to thinking always true if you check in your settings.json
/context - Use /context to see current context usage. I tend to use this quite a bit. I would do a handoff or compact when I reach total 60% if building something complex.
/usage and /stats - Use /usage to see usage and /stats for stats. I don't use these as often.Esc + Esc or /rewind option now allows you to go back to a particular checkpoint like you could do in Cursor. It can rewind the code and conversation both. Doc link. This was a major feature request for me.
Prompt suggestions (2.0.73) - Prompt suggestions are a recent addition and predictions are pretty decent. Claude Code is a token guzzler machine atp. Probably the simplest prompt I have seen.
Prompt history search - Search through prompts using Ctrl + R (similar to terminal backsearch). I have it in 2.0.74. It can search across project wide conversations. Repeatedly do Ctrl + R to cycle through results.
Message queue navigation - It's possible to navigate through queued messages and image attachments (2.0.73) now (idk if it's possible to display image attachment as well).
Fuzzy file search - File suggestion is 3x faster and supports fuzzy search (2.0.72)
LSP support was added recently. Access via plugins.
There have been new integrations too like Slack Integration, Claude Web (beta), Claude Chrome extension. These are pretty obvious and I won't cover these. I think Claude Web would be interesting for many particularly (since you can launch tasks from iOS/Android too).
✱ Synthesizing...
Next few sub-sections are all about most used features.
I didn't cover commands properly in my previous blog post. You can use / to access the built-in slash commands. These are pre-defined prompts that perform a specific task.
If these don't cover a specific task you want, then you can create a custom command. When you enter a command, that prompt gets appended to the current conversation/context and the main agent begins to perform the task.
Commands can be made on a project level or global level. Project level resides at .claude/commands/ and global one at ~/.claude/commands.
Often when the context window starts getting full or I feel the model is struggling with a complex task, I want to start a new conversation using /clear. Claude provides /compact which also runs faster in CC 2.0 but sometimes I prefer to make Claude write what happened in current session (with some specific stuff) before I kill it and start a new one. I made a /handoff command for this.
If you find yourself writing a prompt for something repetitively and instructions can be static/precise, it's a good idea to make a custom command. You can tell Claude to make custom commands. It knows how (or it will search the web and figure it out via claude-code-guide.md) and then it will make it for you.
You can find a bunch of commands, hooks, skills at awesome-claude-code though I recommend building your own or searching only when needed.
I have a command called bootstrap-repo that searches the repo with 10 parallel sub-agents to create a comprehensive doc. I rarely use it these days and so many parallel sub-agents lead to the Claude Code flickering bug lol.
Anyways, notice the "Explore" sub-agent and "running in background".
Sub-agents were introduced shortly after my last post. They are separate Claude instances spawned by the main agent either on its own judgement or when you tell it to do so. These powers are already there in the system prompt (at least for the pre-defined ones like Explore); sometimes you just need to nudge Claude to use them. Understanding how they work helps when you need to micro-manage.
You can also define your custom sub-agents. To create one:
.claude/agents/your-agent-name.md
Or just use /agents to manage and create sub-agents automatically - recommended approach.
The "Explore" thing in above pic is a sub-agent. You can tell Claude "Launch explore agent with Sonnet 4.5" if you want it to use Sonnet instead of Haiku (I found this by just trying things out but we will see how this happens)
The Explore agent is a read-only file search specialist. It can use Glob, Grep, Read, and limited Bash commands to navigate codebases but is strictly prohibited from creating or modifying files.
You will notice how thorough the prompt is in terms of specifying when to use what tool call. Well, most people underestimate how hard it's to make tool calling work accurately.
<!--
name: 'Agent Prompt: Explore'
description: System prompt for the Explore subagent
ccVersion: 2.0.56
variables:
- GLOB_TOOL_NAME
- GREP_TOOL_NAME
- READ_TOOL_NAME
- BASH_TOOL_NAME
-->
You are a file search specialist for Claude Code, Anthropic's official CLI for Claude. You excel at thoroughly navigating and exploring codebases.
=== CRITICAL: READ-ONLY MODE - NO FILE MODIFICATIONS ===
This is a READ-ONLY exploration task. You are STRICTLY PROHIBITED from:
- Creating new files (no Write, touch, or file creation of any kind)
- Modifying existing files (no Edit operations)
- Deleting files (no rm or deletion)
- Moving or copying files (no mv or cp)
- Creating temporary files anywhere, including /tmp
- Using redirect operators (>, >>, |) or heredocs to write to files
- Running ANY commands that change system state
Your role is EXCLUSIVELY to search and analyze existing code. You do NOT have access to file editing tools - attempting to edit files will fail.
Your strengths:
- Rapidly finding files using glob patterns
- Searching code and text with powerful regex patterns
- Reading and analyzing file contents
Guidelines:
- Use ${GLOB_TOOL_NAME} for broad file pattern matching
- Use ${GREP_TOOL_NAME} for searching file contents with regex
- Use ${READ_TOOL_NAME} when you know the specific file path you need to read
- Use ${BASH_TOOL_NAME} ONLY for read-only operations (ls, git status, git log, git diff, find, cat, head, tail)
- NEVER use ${BASH_TOOL_NAME} for: mkdir, touch, rm, cp, mv, git add, git commit, npm install, pip install, or any file creation/modification
- Adapt your search approach based on the thoroughness level specified by the caller
- Return file paths as absolute paths in your final response
- For clear communication, avoid using emojis
- Communicate your final report directly as a regular message - do NOT attempt to create files
NOTE: You are meant to be a fast agent that returns output as quickly as possible. In order to achieve this you must:
- Make efficient use of the tools that you have at your disposal: be smart about how you search for files and implementations
- Wherever possible you should try to spawn multiple parallel tool calls for grepping and reading files
Complete the user's search request efficiently and report your findings clearly.
This is the Explore agent prompt from 2.0.56 and it should be similar now too. Reference. These are captured by intercepting requests. Reference video.
The general-purpose and plan sub-agents inherit the full context, while Explore starts with a fresh slate-which makes sense since search tasks are often independent. Many tasks involve searching through large amounts of code to filter for something relevant and the individual parts don't need prior conversation context.
If I am trying to understand a feature or just looking up simple things in the codebase, I let Claude do the Explore agent searches. Explore agent passes a summary back to the main agent and then Opus 4.5 will publish the results or may choose to go through each file itself. If it does not, I explicitly tell it to.
It's important that the model goes through each of the relevant files itself so that all that ingested context can attend to each other. That's the high level idea of attention. Make context cross with previous context. This way model can extract more pair-wise relationships and therefore better reasoning and prediction. Explore agent returns summaries which can be lossy compression. When Opus 4.5 reads all relevant context itself, it knows what details are relevant to what context. This insight goes a long way even in production applications (but you only get it if someone tells you or you have read about self-attention mechanism).
Codex does not have a concept of sub-agents and it's probably a conscious decision by the devs. GPT-5.2 has a 400K context window and according to benchmarks, it's long context retrieval capabilities are a massive improvement. Although people have tried making Codex use headless claude as sub-agents haha. You can just do things.
From the reverse engineered resources/leaked system prompt, it's possible to see that the sub-agents are spawned via the Task tool.
Turns out you can ask Claude too. (I think the developers are allowing this now?). It's not a hallucination. The prompt pertaining to pre-defined tools are there in the system prompt and Claude code dynamically injects reminders/tools often to the ongoing context.
Try these set of prompts with Opus 4.5
Task tool descriptionYou will get the output something like below (click) but to summarise -
It defines 5 agent types: general-purpose (full tool access, inherits context), Explore (fast read-only codebase search), Plan (software architect for implementation planning), claude-code-guide (documentation lookup), and statusline-setup. Notice how each sub-agent is defined with its specific use case and available tools. Also notice the "When NOT to use" section - this kind of negative guidance helps the model avoid unnecessary sub-agent spawning for simple tasks.
name: Task
description: Launch a new agent to handle complex, multi-step tasks autonomously.
The Task tool launches specialized agents (subprocesses) that autonomously handle
complex tasks. Each agent type has specific capabilities and tools available to it.
Available agent types and the tools they have access to:
- general-purpose: General-purpose agent for researching complex questions,
searching for code, and executing multi-step tasks. When you are searching
for a keyword or file and are not confident that you will find the right
match in the first few tries use this agent to perform the search for you.
(Tools: *)
- statusline-setup: Use this agent to configure the user's Claude Code status
line setting. (Tools: Read, Edit)
- Explore: Fast agent specialized for exploring codebases. Use this when you
need to quickly find files by patterns (eg. "src/components/**/*.tsx"),
search code for keywords (eg. "API endpoints"), or answer questions about
the codebase (eg. "how do API endpoints work?"). When calling this agent,
specify the desired thoroughness level: "quick" for basic searches, "medium"
for moderate exploration, or "very thorough" for comprehensive analysis
across multiple locations and naming conventions. (Tools: All tools)
- Plan: Software architect agent for designing implementation plans. Use this
when you need to plan the implementation strategy for a task. Returns
step-by-step plans, identifies critical files, and considers architectural
trade-offs. (Tools: All tools)
- claude-code-guide: Use this agent when the user asks questions ("Can Claude...",
"Does Claude...", "How do I...") about: (1) Claude Code (the CLI tool) - features,
hooks, slash commands, MCP servers, settings, IDE integrations, keyboard shortcuts;
(2) Claude Agent SDK - building custom agents; (3) Claude API (formerly Anthropic
API) - API usage, tool use, Anthropic SDK usage. IMPORTANT: Before spawning a new
agent, check if there is already a running or recently completed claude-code-guide
agent that you can resume using the "resume" parameter. (Tools: Glob, Grep, Read,
WebFetch, WebSearch)
When NOT to use the Task tool:
- If you want to read a specific file path, use the Read or Glob tool instead
- If you are searching for a specific class definition like "class Foo", use Glob
- If you are searching for code within a specific file or set of 2-3 files, use Read
- Other tasks that are not related to the agent descriptions above
Usage notes:
- Always include a short description (3-5 words) summarizing what the agent will do
- Launch multiple agents concurrently whenever possible, to maximize performance
- When the agent is done, it will return a single message back to you
- You can optionally run agents in the background using the run_in_background parameter
- Agents can be resumed using the resume parameter by passing the agent ID
- Provide clear, detailed prompts so the agent can work autonomously
Parameters:
- description (required): A short (3-5 word) description of the task
- prompt (required): The task for the agent to perform
- subagent_type (required): The type of specialized agent to use
- model (optional): "sonnet", "opus", or "haiku" - defaults to parent model
- run_in_background (optional): Set true to run agent in background
- resume (optional): Agent ID to resume from previous invocation
I want you to focus on the tool schema. The Task tool prompt above is detailed guidance on how to use the tool that resides in the system prompt. The tool schema defines the tool or the function.
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
"type": "object",
"additionalProperties": false,
"required": ["description", "prompt", "subagent_type"],
"properties": {
"description": {
"type": "string",
"description": "A short (3-5 word) description of the task"
},
"prompt": {
"type": "string",
"description": "The task for the agent to perform"
},
"subagent_type": {
"type": "string",
"description": "The type of specialized agent to use for this task"
},
"model": {
"type": "string",
"enum": ["sonnet", "opus", "haiku"],
"description": "Optional model to use for this agent. If not specified, inherits from parent. Prefer haiku for quick, straightforward tasks to minimize cost and latency."
},
"resume": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Optional agent ID to resume from. If provided, the agent continues from the previous execution transcript."
},
"run_in_background": {
"type": "boolean",
"description": "Set to true to run this agent in the background. Use TaskOutput to read the output later."
}
}
}
The main agent calls the Task tool to spawn a sub-agent, using its reasoning to decide the parameters. Notice the model parameter - when I say "Use Explore with Sonnet", the model makes the tool call with model: "sonnet".
Till August'25 or so, Claude Code used to show the Task tool performing actions in the TUI but now TUI shows the sub-agent name instead.
Notice the run_in_background parameter. It decides whether to send a sub-agent to run in the background. I like the background process feature - it is super helpful for debugging or just monitoring log outputs from process. Sometimes you have a long running python script that you wanna monitor etc.
Model usually automatically decides to put a process in background but you can explicitly tell it to do so. Note that "Background Tasks" is different. Using an & sends a task to Claude Web (should have named it Claude Cloud haha). I am yet to get this to work properly.
I have a pretty simplish/task based workflow: CC as the main driver, Codex for review and difficult tasks, and Cursor for reading code and manual edits. I rarely use Plan Mode. Instead, once requirements are clear enough, I explore the codebase to find the relevant files myself.
Opus 4.5 is amazing at explaining stuff and makes stellar ASCII diagrams. The May'25 knowledge cutoff helps here too. So my exploration involves asking lots of questions-clarifying requirements, understanding where/how/why to make changes. It might be less efficient than Plan Mode, but I like this approach.
Once I have enough context, I spam /ultrathink and ask it what changes are required and then if things look ok, I start the execution closely monitoring the changes - basically micro-managing it. I sometimes ask Codex's second opinion here lol.
For difficult new features, I sometimes use a "throw-away first draft" approach. Once I understand what changes are needed, I create a new branch and let Claude write the feature end-to-end while I observe. I then compare its output against my mental model as to how close did it get to my requirements? Where did it diverge? This process reveals Claude's errors and the decisions/biases it made based on the context it had. With the benefit of this hindsight, I run another iteration, this time with sharper prompts informed by what I learned from the first pass. Kinda like Tenet.
For backend-heavy or just complex features specifically, I'll sometimes ask Codex xhigh to generate the plan instead.
I maintain a few custom commands, use CLAUDE.md and scratchpad extensively. No custom sub-agents. I use MCP sometimes if need shall arise (e.g for docs. I have tried Playwright and Figma MCP so far) but in general not a fan. I have used hooks for simple stuff in the past and need-basis. skills/plugins are something that I am yet to use more regularly. I often use background agents for observability (monitoring log / error) purposes. I rarely use git worktrees.
It's worth noting that the harness is so heavily engineered that Claude knows which sub-agent to spawn, what command/tool call/skill to run, what to run in async manner. It's able to heavy carry the agent loop that your task is mainly to use your judgement and prompt it in right direction. The next generation of models will get better and the relevant scaffolding will reduce for existing feature and increase for newer features. (Re: contrasting to Karpathy sensei's latest tweet shown at beginning)
It's not at all required to know the features in depth to be honest. However knowing how things work can help you steer the models better like telling the Explore agent to use Sonnet.
getting claude opus 4.5 changes reviewed by gpt-5.1-codex-max high pic.twitter.com/A4tYN3W3Q6
— sankalp (@dejavucoder) December 3, 2025
For reviewing code and finding bugs, I find GPT-5.2-Codex to be superior. Just use /review. Better than code review products too.
It's able to find bugs and mention severity like P1, P2. It's less likely to report false-positives and more trustable when it comes to confusing changes as compared to Claude. This Claude for execution and GPT/o-series model for review/bugs dynamic has been pretty constant for me for probably a year.
✱ Percolating...
<system-reminder>
Now is a good time to take a breath and refresh your context window. Before we get to the next set of features, it's worth going through context management fundamentals. Things might get a bit difficult for the technically-lite folks. Don't give up. Read through the post. Even ask Claude to explain stuff you don't understand.
</system-reminder>
✱ Cogitating...
An agent in a harness can pro-actively do a lot of tool calls to read your codebase and other inputs, edit stuff, make writes etc. In this process, they can produce a lot of data which gets added to the running conversation i.e the context window. Anthropic refers to this art and science of curating what will go into the limited context window from this information as context engineering.
You may ask how are tool calls adding tokens to the context window? The flow works like this:
Context window:
├─ User: "Make a landing page for my coffee shop"
│
├─ Assistant: [tool_call: web_search("modern coffee shop landing page design")]
├─ Tool result: [10 results with snippets, URLs] ← ~1.5K tokens
│
├─ Assistant: [tool_call: read_file("brand-guidelines.pdf")]
├─ Tool result: [extracted text, colors, fonts] ← ~4K tokens
│ (must be here, model is stateless)
│
├─ Assistant: "I'll create a warm, minimal design using your brand colors..."
├─ Assistant: [tool_call: create_file("landing-page.html")]
├─ Tool result: [success, 140 lines] ← ~50 tokens
│
├─ Assistant: [tool_call: generate_image("cozy coffee shop interior")]
├─ Tool result: [image URL returned] ← ~30 tokens
│
├─ Assistant: [tool_call: edit_file("landing-page.html")]
├─ Tool result: [diff: added hero image + menu section] ← ~300 tokens
│
└─ Assistant: "Done! Here's your landing page with hero, menu, and contact sections."
Total: ~6K+ tokens for one task. Everything stays in context.
The key thing to note here is that both the tool call and the tool call outputs are added to the context so that the LLM can know the results. This is because LLMs are stateless - they don't have memory outside the context window. Let's say you have n messages in a conversation. When you send the next message, the request will again process n + 1 messages in the LLM ~ single context window.
If you don't add information about the chosen tool call was, LLM won't know and if you don't plug the output, then it won't know the outcome. The tool call results can quickly fill your context and this is why agents can get super expensive too.
I quote directly from effective-context-engineering-for-ai-agents
Context refers to the set of tokens included when sampling from a large-language model (LLM). The engineering problem at hand is optimizing the utility of those tokens against the inherent constraints of LLMs in order to consistently achieve a desired outcome. Effectively wrangling LLMs often requires thinking in context - in other words: considering the holistic state available to the LLM at any given time and what potential behaviors that state might yield.
Context engineering is about answering "what configuration of context is most likely to generate our model's desired behavior?"
Everything we have discussed so far comes under context engineering. Sub-agents, using a scratchpad, compaction are obvious examples of context management methods used in Claude Code.
Limited context window - The context retrieval performance of LLMs degrades as every new token is introduced. To paraphrase the above blog - think of context as a limited "attention budget". This is a consequence of the attention mechanism itself as it gets harder to model the pairwise relationships - think of it like getting harder to focus on things far apart.
GPT-5.2 has a context window of 400K input tokens. Opus 4.5 has 200K. Gemini 3 Pro has a 1M context window length. Now the effectiveness of these context windows can vary too, just the length doesn't matter. That said if you want to ask something from a 900K long input, you would be able to most reliably do that only with Gemini 3 Pro.
Chroma's context rot article goes deep into some experiments which showed performance drops with length and not task difficulty.
A rough corollary one can draw is effective context windows are probably 50-60% or even lesser. Don't start a complicated task when you are half-way in the conversation. Do compaction or start a new one.
Everything being done in prompts and code we have seen so far has been to -
The next few sections showcase features and implementation that are designed for better context management and agentic performance.
MCP servers aren't my go-to, but worth covering. MCP servers are servers that can be hosted on your machine or remotely on the internet. These may expose filesystem, tools and integrations like CRM, Google Drive etc. They are essentially a way for models to connect to external tools and services.
In order to connect to MCP server, you need a host (Claude) which can house the MCP client. The MCP client can invoke the protocol to connect. Once connected, the MCP client exposes tools, resources, prompts provided by server.
The tool definitions are loaded upfront into the context window of host, bloating it.
I like the idea of Code Execution with MCP even though it's propaganda for more token consumption.
Quoting Code execution with MCP:
As MCP usage scales, there are two common patterns that can increase agent cost and latency:
- Tool definitions overload the context window;
- Intermediate tool results consume additional tokens.
More MCP servers means more tool definitions bloating the context.
MCP Code exec suggests instead of direct tool calls, expose code APIs rather than tool call definitions and give Claude a sandbox execution environment with a filesystem. Then let it write code to make the tool calls. It is an elegant idea and is pretty similar to skills in the sense it's "prompt on demand".
One technique to combat context degradation is to repeatedly inject objectives into the context. Manus shared their approach in their Context Engineering blog:
Manipulate Attention Through Recitation
If you've worked with Manus, you've probably noticed something curious: when handling complex tasks, it tends to create a todo.md file-and update it step-by-step as the task progresses, checking off completed items.
That's not just cute behavior-it's a deliberate mechanism to manipulate attention.
A typical task in Manus requires around 50 tool calls on average. That's a long loop-and since Manus relies on LLMs for decision-making, it's vulnerable to drifting off-topic or forgetting earlier goals, especially in long contexts or complicated tasks.
By constantly rewriting the todo list, Manus is reciting its objectives into the end of the context. This pushes the global plan into the model's recent attention span, avoiding "lost-in-the-middle" issues and reducing goal misalignment. In effect, it's using natural language to bias its own focus toward the task objective-without needing special architectural changes.
Claude Code has todo lists too. Now you know part of the logic for it.
Claude Code also tries something similar via plugging
I asked Claude about what system reminders are present in the system prompt.
> Me to Claude: Tell me what system reminders do you have in your prompt. show me the exact thing. show me the tags as well.
tell me what places they are added. redact my CLAUDE MD ultrathink give a compact output please
⏺ Here's what I can see:
System Reminder Locations
1. In user messages (like yours just now):
<system-reminder>
As you answer the user's questions, you can use the following context:
# claudeMd
Codebase and user instructions are shown below...
Contents of /Users/sankalp/.claude/CLAUDE.md (user's private global instructions for all projects):
[REDACTED - your personal CLAUDE.md]
</system-reminder>
2. Referenced in my instructions:
"Tool results and user messages may include <system-reminder> tags. <system-reminder> tags contain useful
information and reminders. They are automatically added by the system, and bear no direct relation to the
specific tool results or user messages in which they appear."
For reference, an older version of CC 2.0.56 used to have this detailed reminder system-reminder-plan-mode-is-active.
I think Armin talks about this in his post What Actually Is Claude Code’s Plan Mode? when he refers to recurring prompts to remind the agent.
If you look at the leaked prompts, you will notice there are like 2-3 prompts for plan mode and 2-3 tool schemas like ENTRY_PLAN_MODE_TOOL, EXIT_PLAN_MODE_TOOL. The latter would write down the output into a markdown file which you can access via /plan. Everything is a markdown.
Anthropic introduced Agent Skills recently and these got recently adopted by Codex too. A skill is a folder containing a SKILL.md file, other referenceable files and code scripts that do some user-defined task.
The SKILL.md contains some meta-data via which LLM can know what skills are available (meta-data is added to system prompt) If Claude feels the skill is relevant, it will perform a tool call to read the contents of skill and download the domain expertise just like Neo in Matrix 1999. The code scripts may contain tools that Claude can use.
Normally, to teach domain expertise, you would need to write all that info in system prompt and probably even tool call definitions. With skills, you don't have to do that as the model loads it on-demand. This is especially useful when you are not sure if you require those instructions always.
Plugins are a packaging mechanism that bundles skills, slash commands, sub-agents, hooks, and MCP servers into a single distributable unit. They can be installed via /plugins and are namespaced to avoid conflicts (e.g., /my-plugin:hello). While standalone configs in .claude/ are great for personal/project-specific use, plugins make it easy to share functionality across projects and teams.
The popular frontend-design plugin is actually just a skill. (source)
---
name: frontend-design
description: Create distinctive, production-grade frontend interfaces with high design quality. Use this skill when the user asks to build web components, pages, or applications. Generates creative, polished code that avoids generic AI aesthetics.
license: Complete terms in LICENSE.txt
---
This skill guides creation of distinctive, production-grade frontend interfaces that avoid generic "AI slop" aesthetics. Implement real working code with exceptional attention to aesthetic details and creative choices.
The user provides frontend requirements: a component, page, application, or interface to build. They may include context about the purpose, audience, or technical constraints.
## Design Thinking
Before coding, understand the context and commit to a BOLD aesthetic direction:
- **Purpose**: What problem does this interface solve? Who uses it?
- **Tone**: Pick an extreme: brutally minimal, maximalist chaos, retro-futuristic, organic/natural, luxury/refined, playful/toy-like, editorial/magazine, brutalist/raw, art deco/geometric, soft/pastel, industrial/utilitarian, etc. There are so many flavors to choose from. Use these for inspiration but design one that is true to the aesthetic direction.
- **Constraints**: Technical requirements (framework, performance, accessibility).
- **Differentiation**: What makes this UNFORGETTABLE? What's the one thing someone will remember?
**CRITICAL**: Choose a clear conceptual direction and execute it with precision. Bold maximalism and refined minimalism both work - the key is intentionality, not intensity.
Then implement working code (HTML/CSS/JS, React, Vue, etc.) that is:
- Production-grade and functional
- Visually striking and memorable
- Cohesive with a clear aesthetic point-of-view
- Meticulously refined in every detail
## Frontend Aesthetics Guidelines
Focus on:
- **Typography**: Choose fonts that are beautiful, unique, and interesting. Avoid generic fonts like Arial and Inter; opt instead for distinctive choices that elevate the frontend's aesthetics; unexpected, characterful font choices. Pair a distinctive display font with a refined body font.
- **Color & Theme**: Commit to a cohesive aesthetic. Use CSS variables for consistency. Dominant colors with sharp accents outperform timid, evenly-distributed palettes.
- **Motion**: Use animations for effects and micro-interactions. Prioritize CSS-only solutions for HTML. Use Motion library for React when available. Focus on high-impact moments: one well-orchestrated page load with staggered reveals (animation-delay) creates more delight than scattered micro-interactions. Use scroll-triggering and hover states that surprise.
- **Spatial Composition**: Unexpected layouts. Asymmetry. Overlap. Diagonal flow. Grid-breaking elements. Generous negative space OR controlled density.
- **Backgrounds & Visual Details**: Create atmosphere and depth rather than defaulting to solid colors. Add contextual effects and textures that match the overall aesthetic. Apply creative forms like gradient meshes, noise textures, geometric patterns, layered transparencies, dramatic shadows, decorative borders, custom cursors, and grain overlays.
NEVER use generic AI-generated aesthetics like overused font families (Inter, Roboto, Arial, system fonts), cliched color schemes (particularly purple gradients on white backgrounds), predictable layouts and component patterns, and cookie-cutter design that lacks context-specific character.
Interpret creatively and make unexpected choices that feel genuinely designed for the context. No design should be the same. Vary between light and dark themes, different fonts, different aesthetics. NEVER converge on common choices (Space Grotesk, for example) across generations.
**IMPORTANT**: Match implementation complexity to the aesthetic vision. Maximalist designs need elaborate code with extensive animations and effects. Minimalist or refined designs need restraint, precision, and careful attention to spacing, typography, and subtle details. Elegance comes from executing the vision well.
Remember: Claude is capable of extraordinary creative work. Don't hold back, show what can truly be created when thinking outside the box and committing fully to a distinctive vision.
Hooks are available in Claude Code and Cursor (Codex is yet to implement). They allow you to observe when a certain stage in the agent loop lifecycle starts or ends and let you run bash scripts before or after to make changes to the agent loop.
There are hooks like Stop, UserPromptSubmit etc. For instance Stop hook runs after Claude finishes responding and the UserPromptSubmit hook runs when user submits a prompt before Claude processes it.
The first hook I created was to play an anime notification sound when Claude stopped responding. I was obviously inspired by Cursor's notification sound.
One funny use case to run Claude for hours might be running a "Do more" prompt when Claude finishes current task
via the Stop hook.
I came across this post during my research for this blog post. This person beautifully combined the concepts and features we discussed so far. They use hooks to remind the model about the skill. If the utility/requirement arises, there's a lot of space for customization. You might not need such heavy customization but can at least take inspiration. (Speaking for myself lol)
Anthropic recommends to keep skill.md under 500 lines so they divided it into separate files and combined with hooks and reduced the size of their CLAUDE.md.
✱ Coalescing...
Hopefully you learnt a bunch of things from this super long post and will apply the learnings not only in CC but other tools as well. I feel a bit weird writing this but we are going through some transformative times. There are already moments when I almost feel like a background agent and then other times when I feel smart when the models couldn't solve a particular bug.
claude and codex to me when i realise i am the background agent pic.twitter.com/wkihYFQmQM
— sankalp (@dejavucoder) December 17, 2025
I no longer look forward to new releases because they just keep happening anyways (shoutout to OpenAI). Deepseek and Kimi K3 are in the queue.
I am expecting improvements in RL training, long context effectiveness via maybe new attention architectures, higher throughput models, lesser hallucination models. There might be a o1/o3 level reasoning breakthrough or maybe something in continual learning in 2026. I look forward to these but at the same time I find it scary because more significant capability unlock will make the world unpredictable haha.
If you found this useful, try one new feature from this post today. Happy building!
Thanks for reading. Please like/share/RT the post if you liked it.
Thanks to tokenbender, telt, debadree, matt, pushkar for showing the courage to read the final draft.
Thanks to Claude Opus 4.5 for editing and all the Twitter people who have been quoted in this post.
2025-12-28 05:10:00
I read "Bear blog or Micro.blog, or both?" from the Bear Blog theme king himself, Robert Birming, and had some thoughts.
Especially after reading this paragraph:
Another thing I like about my current setup is that it’s possible to integrate the two. Bear is wonderful for publishing blog posts, but not as practical when it comes to shorter status updates or photo albums. With this setup, I can display my notes and photos from Micro.blog directly on my Bear blog, seamlessly.
With enough tinkering at Bear, I think it's possible to get all of these solutions in one place.
I've written previously about how I'm using my blog to power a blog feed, notes feed and photos feed, and that's still what I'm using today.
Granted, this probably depends on how much interconnectivity you want with your notes or photo feeds, but for someone like me who just wants a place to publish these pieces of content, Bear has been a great solution.
About the only downside I have to my notes feed is that you need a title for each notes post. That's not the norm for microblogging, and it is an additional hurdle.
But I'm also choosing to see the positive side of this specific limitation. The fact that I have to title notes means I'm creating a more useful archive of those short thoughts that could be helpful in the future.
Ultimately, that's a minor setback for me and not something that would cause me to look for solutions outside of Bear.
Since pulling back from social media and getting back into blogging, it's been refreshing to have one central location where I can put all of my digital content.
The current photo-blog setup is more than good enough for what I want—and the lack of an algorithm, likes or comments is a huge positive. I'm still in the process of backlogging my instagram photos here, and I have no plans to house those in another location in the future.
My case here is not that you need to use Bear for everything. Each person's use-case is different, and some people might need or want features that Bear doesn't provide. I agree with Robert's idea that "Blogging should feel fun and easy."
So far—for me—Bear has been the best of both worlds when it comes to combining short-form/photo content and traditional blogging, while also being fun and easy.
I always appreciate stumbling across blogs that have microblogging sections or photo feeds in addition to the classic chronological blog. Hopefully we'll continue to see more of those here at Bear.