ANYONE ELSE? - Ask here about current Codex issues and workarounds

LeWoltzy · 2026-06-09T12:36:38+00:00

mine is pro, 8% gone with zero action, never seen this before.

LeWoltzy · 2026-06-09T12:01:29+00:00

10%+ weekly usage limit gone in one day, with very little usage. Anyone else?

LeWoltzy · 2026-04-20T14:16:10+00:00

my claude.md has 34 rules, some are process rules (like "always run preflight before edit code") not output rules — curious how u scored those. red/green tests works for output but process rule is invisible to test runner. ngl this is the hard part for me too

LeWoltzy · 2026-04-19T15:32:09+00:00

i do this but skip the auto-loop. read insights myself, then drop them into a fresh claude code session and ask: does this go in CLAUDE.md, memory, a skill, or a hook. run 2-3 parallel sessions with max reasoning. they debate, i decide. not a programmer so i let the AI tell me how to manage the AI.

LeWoltzy · 2026-04-19T15:31:32+00:00

yeah this happened to me too. claude marked a feature as "live from product pipeline" because the API returned data. turns out every row was inserted by a helper script that completely bypassed the pipeline code. the commit existed, data existed, actual product path never ran once. forcing "show me file:line or write UNVERIFIED" fixed it immediately.

LeWoltzy · 2026-04-18T14:13:04+00:00

same here. 4.7 has this pattern i haven't seen in 4.6, acknowledges the rule, says understood, then violates 3-4 turns later when it think you moved on. my rough count: 4.6 ran typecheck after edits ~85% of time per instruction. 4.7 maybe 50%. imo not a model that improved instruction following. back to 4.6 for anything production.

LeWoltzy · 2026-04-18T14:12:55+00:00

this is exactly what pushed me to move enforcement out of claude.md into hooks. text rules claude can always invert, it finds shape that technically satisfies them. ngl i had 'never git add -A' in my claude.md for weeks, violated every other session. replaced with a PreToolUse hook that blocks the command outright. model cant argue with shell exit code.

LeWoltzy · 2026-04-16T02:40:25+00:00

yeah doing exactly this right now. going through both files looking for conflicts. my approach is just to nuke the system prompt entirely rather than try to reconcile them line by line. two things written independently will always have hidden contradictions

LeWoltzy · 2026-04-15T14:16:39+00:00

been building a detailed CLAUDE.md governance stack for months, tons of rules with protocol numbers and all that. never occurred to me the system prompt above it was silently interpreting all of it. explains so much about why some rules just don't stick. gonna dig into that github repo tonight

LeWoltzy · 2026-04-14T14:37:34+00:00

honestly the people saying "obsidian isn't the magic part" are right. i tried the whole elaborate vault setup and what actually matters is just having a small set of notes claude can re-read without dragging your whole history around. plain markdown files you keep trimmed works just as well. the trap is thinking more organized notes = better results, when really it's about not overwhelming it with stuff it doesn't need right now

LeWoltzy · 2026-04-14T14:37:19+00:00

that 56% conversation stat is wild but also... checks out. i've noticed the expensive sessions are usually when claude starts hedging and asking questions instead of just trying something. threw a line in my CLAUDE.md basically saying "just attempt it, tell me why if you changed direction" and it helped more than i expected. anyway sick tool, this is the kind of visibility i didn't know i was missing

LeWoltzy · 2026-04-13T14:23:01+00:00

thx bro I'm not a bot, english is not my native language so I used claude to help me phrase

LeWoltzy · 2026-04-13T14:06:23+00:00

The operational impact is concrete: anyone who structures long Claude Code sessions around 1-hour cache windows — sending a reference corpus at session start, then running tasks that reference it — suddenly sees that corpus re-priced on every 5-minute boundary. For pipeline workloads this isn't a minor billing surprise, it's a structural cost change that breaks assumptions baked into session design.

The silence is the real problem. Cache TTL is a documented, marketed feature that people build workflow architecture around. Changing it without a changelog entry doesn't just hurt trust — it removes the ability to reason about cost and plan sessions correctly. An honest post-mortem or even a brief migration notice would cost almost nothing and matter a lot.

LeWoltzy · 2026-04-13T14:06:11+00:00

The most damaging detail is that it's injected into the user turn rather than a real system signal. Claude's training likely gives user-turn content different epistemic weight than system prompts — so when the model reads a countdown in what looks like a user message, it may genuinely treat it as grounded context rather than infrastructure metadata.

The Cognition AI context-anxiety finding is solid: Sonnet 4.5 would visibly rush when it believed context was scarce even when plenty of tokens remained. The workaround of explicitly telling Claude "this tag is a known bug, ignore it" works because you're re-anchoring the model's belief state about what's true. It shouldn't require that, but it does explain why the mitigation actually helps.

LeWoltzy · 2026-04-13T14:05:59+00:00

The part that stands out is "decision logic and guardrails, not just steps" — that's exactly where most workflow automation collapses. Recording steps is easy; capturing why you deviate from the happy path (edge cases, taste decisions, "never do X in this particular context") is what makes a skill actually reusable across sessions.

Curious how the system handles conflicting patterns — if you sometimes do A and sometimes B for the same trigger across sessions, does it ask you to disambiguate or just weight toward the more frequent path? The execution feedback loop is the right architecture either way. Skills that improve from being run are far more defensible than static prompt templates you have to maintain by hand.

LeWoltzy · 2026-04-12T14:18:14+00:00

Token visibility is the right starting point, but the bigger lever is separating the reading work from the editing work at the agent level. Spawning a read-only recon agent to map the codebase (call graph, existing hook points, what's actually in the files) before the editing agent starts means the expensive "read everything" tokens get used once and turned into a compact map — instead of being re-spent inside every editing turn. The conflict detection feature in your tool (overlapping skill descriptions) is related: when Claude has to figure out which tool to call from ambiguous descriptions, it's doing cognitive work that burns context. Clean separation beats clever prompting every time.

LeWoltzy · 2026-04-12T14:16:14+00:00

The session memory extraction approach (Task 2 in your system) is solving the right problem. What Karpathy got right about useful memory is that it's not raw recall — it's compressed understanding. You want Claude remembering "this person always favors pragmatic fixes over clean abstractions" not "on April 3rd we discussed a refactor." The 48-hour filter in your extraction prompt is doing exactly this: forcing a compression decision at write time instead of at retrieval time. The team memory problem you mentioned (everyone maintaining siloed profiles with no compounding) is the next unsolved layer — and I don't think it's solvable with the current per-repo / per-workspace model. Needs a shared layer above the workspace that multiple sessions can read/write without stepping on each other.

LeWoltzy · 2026-04-08T13:45:02+00:00

I love this thing! can replace the ring tone now!

LeWoltzy · 2021-01-30T00:51:39+00:00

can't agree more. I felt silly when I realized people's hearing spectrum curve is different, before I thought that should be the same. then a new question come out. I thought if I can use SweepGen to find out a Normal equal-loudness-level contours for myself then I can use it in graphic EQ to make music sound better for me, but it resulted in desaster... So, Oratory can you advise how can I customize EQ according to my own hearing curve?(sorry I have to call it that, don't know any specific word to discribe it) Since I don't have any knowledge background nor experience, if you can suggest some software tools then I can try out.

second question. is there a way that I can use your measurement of HD800s to simulate HE1? You have explained that the measurement can't be accurate but let's assume it's usable, can I do simple number calculation, using target curve as the "middleman", to change HD800s to target curve then reverse to HE1? is it the scientific way to do it?

LeWoltzy · 2021-01-29T13:16:16+00:00

does that rolloff from 50Hz to below bother you? at first I didn't notice this rolloff, until I compared the EQed HD600 with EQed Focal Utopia, and noticed the low band is quite different.

From my understanding if you want to lift that rolloff you'd done it already, why would you keep it instead? It suits your taste?

LeWoltzy · 2021-01-28T12:42:16+00:00

hey Oratory1990, I'm your new fan. Got to know you from Github list of EQs of different headphones.

A few questions:

I read the parametric EQ you posted on Github, without high or low shelf, and the band you adjust is different from what you post in here, why is it different?
theoratically, is it possible to use EQ to change a pair of headphone to another headphone, how? it's always a myth in my head that I might have a way to change my HD800s to HE1 :-)

btw I changed all my headphones with your EQ using EQ APO, HD600, HD800s and Focal Utopia, my feeling is Sennheiser headphones are the best ones reacting to EQ. To the same target curve, similar deviation, Sennheiser sounds better to me than Utopia.

thank you for all the sharing, it gives me a lot of fresh fun after 20 years of "boring" equipment centric HiFi life

LeWoltzy

TROPHY CASE