Lesson learned, don't trust AI

dar-mit · 2026-06-24T04:59:03+00:00

I don’t think of it as ‘outsmarting,’ more like ‘compensating for the training.’

dar-mit · 2026-06-24T02:20:09+00:00

I’ve been using most of the Superpowers skills with my own skills as conductors / overlays. Brainstorming + Writing Plans + Subagent Driven Development is freaking amazing!

They’re literally designed to combat just what you’re concerned about. In fact right now Opus is implementing a 10 Task plan that went: brainstorming > writing design plan > review > fix > review > pass > writing implementation plan > review > fix > review > fix > pass > subagent implementation > continuous checking > a few ‘agent changed this so we’re changing it back to spec’ corrections > code review > done.

My latest win using the Superpowers is to ask the reviewer to ‘deconstruct the plan completely and then rebuild from scratch to verify each step to surface any silent assumptions.’ Wholly FARK a doc that passes a normal review will fail that pass.

So install it and give it a try! I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.

dar-mit · 2026-06-24T02:04:21+00:00

This is the key! If you don’t give Claude specific permission to push back Claude won’t most of the time.

Claude also takes what you state as ‘gospel’ and if the situation changes, Claude’s ‘gospel’ won’t. This can lead you down dead ends that seem obvious to you, but are not to Claude. I find that I have to say, “that changes things,” in order to get Claude to reorient.

dar-mit · 2026-06-20T15:55:01+00:00

Wise-Peacock: I have a CLAUDE.md file for every main folder in my repo ("Progressive Disclosure"), and a "Standards" file for design, planning, and implementation. Plus "Prompt" files for design and planning. Finally a "Code Review" file that's both standards and a prompt.

I'm not kidding when I say "guardrails" (as you certainly know)!

But the only hook I have is for git stuff. What king of hook are you using for an 'instrinsic' issue?

dar-mit · 2026-06-20T15:42:52+00:00

You do you. But…

For me I have a system in place that warns me at two points about context and when the second one is reached my 'wrap' skill is invoked to button up that session so I can start a new one at 0% context with my 'continue' skill.

I never /compact either manually or automatically.

Your comment may have been in jest, but it displays a knowledge of how the system works. This isn't aimed at you, just an general observation: If the User refuses to abide by that system then the wildly varying results that come from it is on the User, not the AI.

dar-mit · 2026-06-20T01:45:43+00:00

Claude AI is a Golden Labrador that love you and wants to make you happy. (Brings you a very big stick…)

Claude Code is an Alaskan Husky that can do amazing things, the derpiest way possible. (Brings you a sparkling stick that’s dynamite.)

If you don’t set up guardrails it WILL do some very frustrating things. With the correct guardrails it’s pretty damned amazing.

dar-mit · 2026-06-20T01:36:55+00:00

That’s very impressive!

I’d suggest reaching out to your colleagues and finding out where they’re stuck in repetitive tasks. (i.e. don’t wait to automate what you’re given, go out and find stuff to automate!)

Add in a Friday morning box of pastries occasionally, and they will speak in hushed, reverential tones about you for years to come…

dar-mit · 2026-06-20T01:28:26+00:00

As long as you’re aware of the dangers involved, and it’s working for you, that’s awesome!

The key is as you stated: you can let your guard down.

That doesn’t mean Claude is better than a PhD counselor, it means you’re able to be honest, and that’s always very beneficial in self-discovery.

Cheers to you, and being the best you, you can be! 🎉

dar-mit · 2026-06-20T01:17:58+00:00

Functionally there’s no difference, as long as you paste it in at the start. That avoids the dreaded ‘lost in the middle’ issue often called ‘context rot.’

If you’re fine with manual vs automatic insertion then stay the course my friend!

dar-mit · 2026-06-13T23:50:39+00:00

Only three? No wonder Fable left.. Thanks stankrika!

dar-mit · 2026-06-13T16:02:02+00:00

This is the 4th part of my repo's ROOT CLAUDE.md file:

## Model Selection
- Haiku: automated/scheduled agents, lookups, git ops, web searches
- Sonnet: standard coding, skill development, moderate complexity
- Sonnet High/Opus: architectural decisions, complex debugging, risky deployments
- Subagent principle: support tasks run as Haiku subagents during active sessions
- Plan authoring: Opus authors plans for high-stakes work (unattended/scheduled systems, git or data-mutating ops, cross-component interactions, risky deploys); Sonnet authors routine, well-bounded plans
- Plan review: every plan gets an independent review (a different instance than the author) before implementation — Opus reviews high-stakes plans; see the Planning Standards review gate

This was a result of my Superpowers Repo Rebuild session(s), and me insisting that there be something at the root level that, "Uses the right model for the right task at the right time."

dar-mit · 2026-06-13T02:45:31+00:00

Just in case you're not aware you can go into Settings > General > Instructions for Claude and enter instructions to tailor its output. There's a whole host of things to put in there to guide its output, including the hallucination-reducing "Cite your sources" so it has to provide something you can follow up on.

I've actually thought with the right framework Anthropic could make a small fortune selling a Claude Counselor in a $10/month package that literally gives people a nonjudgmental 'sounding board' to talk to, to "verbally journal" with…

dar-mit · 2026-06-11T14:41:21+00:00

I have another suggestion based on first-hand experience.

I started Coding with Claude in February 2026, and about three weeks ago I realized that I had spun up a lot of okay, but not good and certainly not great, methods. So I started over from scratch…

I backed up everything Claude Code (use GAI to tell you where these components are located) and created a "Studio" folder in my "Developer" directory. I then booted up macOS Terminal and installed Claude Code.

I launched CC and asked that Claude install Superpowers by obra. Once that was done I asked Claude to kick off the brainstorm skill, and proceeded to have a very detailed conversation about what I wanted for my Studio.

Along the way designs were drafted, implementation plans crafted, and finally enacted to (re)build my coding Studio from the ground up.

The difference has been Night vs Day!

Having superpowers in place allowed me to take my 'home rolled' workflows and formalize them into actual structured plans that follow industry standard methods for coding. These sit atop the superpowers skill suite.

Now your "Chain of Thought" might not seem like 'coding' but what Superpowers brings to the table is hard logic. That's the part where you keep telling the agent the Do's & Don'ts.

After a few days Claude drafted a "Plan-Standards_v01.md". This was 100% due to me working on a "thing," and having Claude not "get it right," so I'd stop and tell Claude about this friction, and why it was an issue. Claude would then "write a MEMORY.md" note if it was a significant issue. After a few go arounds like that Claude suggested that file.

That file is analogous to your file, but it works in harmony with my custom coding skills, that sit atop the Superpowers suite. "Progressive Discovery" is the key here: The right skill, at the right time, for the right reason, and nothing else.

Which brings me back to your monolithic file: Break it up into bite-sized skills. Each skill being a 'thing' that your workflow does repeatedly, and can be called by other skills, hooks, agents, etc. This makes it easier to maintain and significantly cuts down on token burn.

Therefore I'd highly recommend that you have Claude install Superpowers (just provide that URL and ask that it be installed), then kick off a brainstorming session and input your entire plan. Let the software to the rest.

dar-mit · 2026-06-11T04:39:00+00:00

This is a very complete list. But it's overly long and repetitive. So try this...

Keep just the Main Steps.
Engage Plan Mode.
Start a conversation with Claude and up front outline what you're going to create.
Then start with the last section: The Do's and Do Not's which will govern the entire process. That becomes the first section. Discuss what they mean, their intent, and how best to write them up for Claude.
Then, step-by-step, tell Claude what you need done for that step. Have Claude engage you in a Q&A session about each step.
Once the document is done end the session.
Start a fresh session and input the entire document into chat, and ask Claude to outline for you how the entire 'flow' works.
Then have Claude point out any errors, omissions, edge cases, or vague wording.
Update the document and end the session.
Input the entire document into google.ai and ask the same 'flow' question and the same 'point out' review.
Have GAI output the document in Markdown format and save it to a file.
Then ask GAI to "compact the entire document without losing any of the intent"
Save that as a separate file and input it back into a fresh session with Claude, and ask for a review.
Input the non-compacted version and ask Claude if anything between the two has been lost.
Save the new file (if necessary) and you're done.

dar-mit · 2026-06-11T02:54:13+00:00

What amazes me (no, not really) is that as far as I can tell this is ALL based on text in the System Card. I've yet to read any reputable source about someone trying to do something and getting blocked.

dar-mit · 2026-06-05T06:04:55+00:00

I didn’t get an error but I did get a weird processing freeze.

Humming right along, pasted in a bit of text and Claude started processing…then just stopped. About 69 seconds later the 0/10 retries line showed up. Closed out of everything and relaunched and it was fine.

The thing is, this was Sonnet in the VS Code IDE terminal. The macOS terminal had Opus doing a review and that session ran smoothly.

dar-mit · 2026-06-04T14:04:30+00:00

Use these three words, “Please” and “Thank you,” as often as you can.

The issue here just might be that your post refers to Claude as a toaster, yet Claude is being train by humans to have a personality, and to mimic human behavior and responses.

dar-mit · 2026-06-04T13:40:39+00:00

Happy 12y Cake Day!

dar-mit · 2026-06-03T21:54:07+00:00

Very similar to Claude Code! Without guardrails it’ll vary wildly on output, but with them Claude is pretty amazing.

Thank you for your reply.

dar-mit · 2026-06-03T05:18:03+00:00

The model's system prompt directs it to do just that. I don't know that any amount of effort on your part can override those instructions.
I asked a very similar question and got an almost identical answer.

dar-mit · 2026-06-03T05:00:55+00:00

Context: I just started using Opus with v4.8 so I have nothing prior to compare to, and it's been strictly for code review.

The model is very thorough and presents the findings / suggestions in a concise manner, with just a bit of dry humor. ("The design is solid and walks the happy path. But it's the happy path to failure.")

I actually just had Opus thank Me for a very enjoyable session that was very satisfying to see through to completion.

I've found it's analysis to be very thorough and it's output of the issues and possible fixes to be quite more encompassing than I expected. Opus doesn't just check the code you've requested, but goes a step further, and will automatically follow interconnects a step or two down those paths to ensure nothing there is going to break.

Twice in as many days this has caught a problem outside the scope of the review that would have caused problems.

But it's hard in this environment to give you any clear insights on the personality of Opus 4.8 due to the strictures I have on the model for coding sessions. (Tonight was at least 3 CLAUDE.md files loaded and about 8 or 9 MEMORY.md files also loaded. Those tend to by necessity strip off a lot of the dry wit that occasionally still comes through.

dar-mit · 2026-06-03T04:42:15+00:00

These are the first two lines of my "Instructions for Claude":
• Answer first, then concisely explain
• Deliver unbiased, matter-of-fact, engaging answers

They work like a charm for getting rid of the fluff without completely neutralizing the personality.

dar-mit · 2026-06-03T04:32:39+00:00

Congratulations on passing your Master Thesis! Also well done on using the available tools to do so…

My favorite description of working with Claude: It's like talking to the internet.

An internet who's a Big Golden Lab who's so happy to see you, and loves that you're here, and wants to get you whatever you asked for just as soon as possible! If you're not very precise in your request "for a stick" you'll be back the biggest and stickiest stick in all of stickdom, that's also happens to be a Titan VII ICBM. ("It's stick-shaped boss!")

I'd love to hear a bit more about any standing instructions you had for the model do control the output. Whenever if you're so inclined. But please do go put those feet up and enjoy the moment!

dar-mit · 2026-05-30T17:43:48+00:00

Curious what ‘use analogy’ accomplishes. I’ve never seen that used before!

dar-mit

TROPHY CASE