I'll ask it to do something and it'll say, I tried, but I couldn't do it over and over again or some variation of.
But it doesn't do that at the start of my subscription, so...
Because just calling something bad does not add a lot to the conversation. It's not thoughtful, interesting, or good.
I have a Claude Code and OpenAI subscription so that I can use Opus/Fable/gpt-5.6 as I please, and the models are often catching things the other models missed. So much that I would significantly weaken my workflow if I dropped one subscription.
My best workflow at the moment is to create the initial plan with Fable (before review/revise-cycling with other models). From my own testing it seems slightly better at arriving at high-level ideal solutions after sweeping the whole project, projecting future needs, then coming up with good trade-offs like "by construction" correctness.
While mostly subjective, maybe the closest objectivity I have here is noticing fewer revision cycles needed with Fable-initialized plans.
I mean i think if a developer has a good handle of the code the difference is marginal .
Unless we 100% offload the thinking to the model and act like a prompt manager. Maybe
"From May 13, 2026 through August 19, 2026, your weekly usage limit in Claude Code is 50% higher."
Double plus good, eh!
Bluestein•39m ago