## The Future Codebase After the PR dies, after the Code Review dies, i am seriously wondering if Git needs to die next. roughly 20-40% of code spend is just managing and updating merge conflicts. necessary evil? or legacy "horseless carriage"? cargo culting the past? we don't do line by line merge conflicts when we collaborate with human colleagues - instead we chat, suggest edits, do side comments, and an owner ships it. btw we also don't do CI/CD even collaborating on documents with serious legal/financial implications. maybe the future codebase looks more like a Notion or Linear database than .git objects. It will be less efficient, but more scalable. exactly the Salty Lesson.

Different sports. Different journeys. Same destination greatness. Ronaldo. Messi. Federer. Kohli. McGregor.Legends aren't remembered for numbers. They make numbers legendary.

## On Loopcraft One might argue the entire game of the next century is to be able to stack loops as effectively as possible. In the early days of each phase, it will be valuable to know when to go **DOWN** a loop when things go wrong (for reliability)… but it will probably be more valuable to know how to go **UP** a loop as models improve (for leverage). If you don’t figure out how to do this, don’t be salty when you lose to those that do.

We’re rolling out changes to make Fable 5’s safeguards for frontier LLM development visible. Starting this week, flagged requests will visibly fall back to Opus 4.8—the same as our safeguards for cyber and bio. You will see this every time it happens. On the API, any flagged requests will return a reason for their refusal (coming to server-side fallback in the next few days). We wanted to deploy Fable 5 to our users quickly and safely. Visible safeguards can be probed, so they have to be robust, which takes time to get right. Invisible safeguards can be targeted more narrowly, allowing us to ship quickly with very few false positives. We went with invisible safeguards for this reason—and that was the wrong tradeoff. You should have visibility into the safeguards we have in place, and why. We’re sorry for not getting the balance right. Making the safeguards visible makes them easier to work around, so keeping them robust to jailbreaks will unfortunately mean more false positives while we improve the classifiers. We're also tuning our bio and cyber classifiers to trigger less often on harmless requests. We know this is frustrating and we’ll do our best to keep this period as short as possible. If you think a request has been mistakenly flagged: run /feedback in Claude Code, click thumbs-down on the fallback in Claude.ai or Cowork, or file the safeguard appeal form for API requests. Your reports help us tune these classifiers and we appreciate your feedback. support.claude.com/en/articl…

关于屌炸天的Claude Fable 5， 这条推文是你必看和必收藏的， 帮大家总结了Anthropic内部用烂了的核心杠杆和方法：我敢说用了这个，你的Agent会越用越聪明，复利效应爆炸。 虽然很多人吐槽Fable 5的费用是Opus 4.8的将近3倍，但我想说他确实值这个价！ Anthropic内部工程师这篇文章大家可以看看，基本说透了，我帮大家总结下核心要点： 1️⃣90%的人都在浪费Fable 5的能力， 很多人还在给它扔单次prompt， 它真正的实力，是当一个能自主干活的长期工程师， 2️⃣Fable 5是第一个能真正自律循环的模型， 所以不要只给它一个指令让它交差， 得给它一个清晰的目标， 一个可量化的打分标准， 一个能自己跑的环境， 然后它会自己做实验、看结果、踩坑、反思、改代码、再跑，直到把事干成。 3️⃣这就是它比Opus强一个档次的真正原因， 任务越长、越复杂、越需要迭代，它的优势就会越夸张： ✅ Parameter Golf工程挑战，效率比Opus高6倍 ✅ Slay the Spire加持久记忆后，表现直接翻3倍 ✅ 50万行代码库迁移，一次性搞定不用人擦屁股 4️⃣@RLanceMartin 分享了两个Anthropic内部用烂了的核心杠杆： 杠杆❶ 自我纠正循环：不要写prompt，写rubric 不要说帮我优化这个代码， 要说： • 目标：把这个接口的延迟降到100ms以内 • 评分标准：延迟达标、所有单元测试通过、代码不超过300行 • 给它一个能自己运行代码的沙箱 然后你就可以去喝咖啡了😆 它会自己改、自己跑、自己看日志、自己调， 5️⃣最关键的一步：不要让它自己批评自己， 单独开一个独立上下文的验证代理，客观打分， 这一个改动，准确率直接翻倍！ 杠杆2 记忆系统：给它一个能写日记的外脑 不要把所有东西都塞进上下文， 给它一个共享的文件系统， 让它每次干完活，都写工作笔记： • 今天犯了什么错 • 为什么会错 • 下次应该怎么改 • 提炼成一条通用规则 Fable 5是目前唯一一个能真正走完这个流程的模型： 出错→调查→验证→蒸馏成规则→下次直接用。 Opus只能到第二步，Sonnet连第一步都做不好。

RT @FeitengLi: Boris Cherny(Claude Code 的创始人兼负责人) @bcherny 和 Cat Wu(Claude Code 产品负责人) 复盘 Claude Code 第一年: 一年前通用版上线，第一个 demo 发到 Slack 只换来…

How do you get Claude Code to check its own work before handing it back? Watch how you can encode your manual checks so Claude closes its own feedback loop:

Blew almost 40% of my weekly in a half day, thank you for the contribution ❤️

Introducing the Cursor Developer Habits Report. We’re sharing some of our findings on how software development is changing. It’s based on the most comprehensive dataset on AI coding in the world, across all model families.

打开Codex，设定目标或直接对话，提示词如下： 阅读并检索我们所有的 Codex 对话记录与执行日志，进行系统性复盘，提炼出可复用的经验文档。 文档需要涵盖以下内容： 一、执行经验总结：记录哪些做法导致了问题、最终正确的执行方式是什么，以及从中得出的教训。 二、我的偏好与理念提炼：从对话中识别并归纳我的 UI 设计偏好、产品设计理念、交互原则等，形成结构化的个人风格档案。 三、可复用规则清单：将上述内容整理为 Codex 未来可直接遵循的行为准则。 完成文档后，将其保存为独立文件，并在 .agent 配置中以地址引用的方式加载该文档，使后续所有 Codex 会话默认继承这些经验，无需重复说明。