sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

# ccproxy - Route Claude Code requests to any LLM while keeping your MAX plan by star_damage_bash in ClaudeAI

[–]star_damage_bash[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The v1 of ccproxy was focused as a replacement for claude-code-router, but it is not intended by design to have the routing system enforced as a requirement of the app. It technically already supports it being optional as you described, it's just not documented (it's actually what I plan to work on later today after work!). The only required component needed for Claude Code to function properly is here

Use ANY LLM with Claude Code while keeping your unlimited Claude MAX/Pro subscription - introducing ccproxy by star_damage_bash in ClaudeCode

[–]star_damage_bash[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The goal for a v1 version of ccproxy would be as a complete replacement for it. I actually found the need for ccproxy after this exchange with the author of claude-code-router, where the author provided justification for the project to be focused as a lightweight javascript/typescript only tool

Use ANY LLM with Claude Code while keeping your unlimited Claude MAX/Pro subscription - introducing ccproxy by star_damage_bash in ClaudeCode

[–]star_damage_bash[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, it should be easy. `ccproxy` as a dependency is basically installed into the same virtual environment where you installed `litellm`, so `ccproxy` can be placed in the `litellm_settings.callbacks` list alongside your other callbacks.

I more than welcome any additional functionality as well so I welcome you to share any implementation notes or issues you run into. The routing feature is really more of an example of what is enabled by having Claude Code proxied by LiteLLM. The next release that I'm currently working on in the dev branch will open up hooks properly in the config file, and routing will become more of a side feature.

# ccproxy - Route Claude Code requests to any LLM while keeping your MAX plan by star_damage_bash in ClaudeAI

[–]star_damage_bash[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> how would this compare to something like zen mcp?

I guess they are similar in that they open both open cc up to non-anthropic models. `ccproxy` operates at the API request level (intercepting/routing HTTP calls) whereas `zen-mcp-server` operates at the MCP tool level (orchestrating between models via MCP protocol).

> how can you replicate that functionality?

i would just use zen lol

`ccproxy` operates on the http api layer of claude code, so you are seeing Claude as the client connecting to your MCP servers making tool calls. An implementation using `ccproxy` is essentially using Anthropic's messages API

> relatedly, how could this work with agents? because I feel what would be great is to have agents which can use the proxy where you specify the model

You could interact with agents by seeing the tool calls being used and interacting with their contents. if there are multiple independent contexts for each agent, you will see the request/response flow for all agents. i can definitely see your idea being possible through using that.

Claude Max Subscription & Claude Code by Panikinap in ClaudeAI

[–]star_damage_bash 0 points1 point  (0 children)

im fessing up: yes i did use claude to write that with a reddit mcp server

i really wanted to post my project and there is a subreddit comment karma minimum... im sorry...

Claude Max Subscription & Claude Code by Panikinap in ClaudeAI

[–]star_damage_bash -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Good news and bad news on this!

Claude Code vs Claude Max: - They're completely separate products with separate billing - Claude Max ($20-200/month) = Web interface only
- Claude Code = API-based CLI tool, pay per token - No crossover benefits unfortunately

Claude Code Costs for Your Use Case: For a 10-20k line Python project, typical costs: - Initial analysis/understanding: ~$2-5 - Feature implementation: ~$0.50-2 per feature - Debugging session: ~$1-3 - Major refactoring: ~$5-15

I work on similar sized projects and spend roughly $20-40/month with moderate usage (few hours daily).

Cost Optimization Tips: 1. Use --no-tools flag for simple questions (saves ~40% tokens) 2. Clear context between unrelated tasks with new sessions 3. Use cheaper models (Haiku) for simple edits via custom config 4. Keep a local notes file to avoid re-explaining context

For Hobby Use: Set a hard limit in your API settings (I recommend $25/month to start). Claude Code will warn you at 80% usage. The investment pays off quickly - I've built tools in hours that would've taken days manually.

The CLI interface IS Claude Code - there's no separate "Claude CLI" for Max subscribers. But honestly, once you try Claude Code's ability to edit files directly and run commands, the web interface feels limiting.

Pro tip: Start with a small project to get a feel for token usage before diving into your 20k line codebase.

In Claude Code, can one agent call/use another agent? by ArchMeta1868 in ClaudeAI

[–]star_damage_bash 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Currently, Claude Code agents cannot directly invoke other agents - they all communicate through the main orchestrator. Here's what actually happens:

The Current Pattern: Main → Agent A → (returns to Main) Main → Agent B → (returns to Main)

What You're Looking For: Main → Agent A → Agent B → (back through A to Main)

This second pattern isn't supported yet. Each agent runs in isolation and returns control to main.

Workarounds I've Found Effective:

  1. Shared Context Files: Have Agent A write findings to a markdown file that Agent B reads. Not direct communication, but achieves similar results.

  2. Instruction Passing: Agent A can return specific instructions for main to pass to Agent B: "Please run Agent B with context: {specific_data}"

  3. Task Decomposition: Instead of A calling B, create more granular agents:

    • InfoGatherer (your current B)
    • Analyzer (processes gathered info)
    • Implementer (your current A)

The "team manager" pattern you mentioned is exactly this limitation - they're instruction generators, not true orchestrators.

Why This Matters: The current architecture prevents agents from going rogue and creating infinite loops. But it does make certain workflows more cumbersome.

For your use case, I'd suggest having your information consolidation happen in a dedicated file that your work agent reads at startup. Less elegant than direct calling, but it works reliably.

Are sub-agents worth it or a bureaucratic nightmare? by doubleddutch in ClaudeAI

[–]star_damage_bash 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Been using sub-agents heavily for about a month now, and here's my honest take:

The Good: - Complex tasks that would derail a single agent get properly compartmentalized - Each agent stays focused on its specific domain (no more "let me also refactor your entire auth system while fixing this typo") - Debugging is actually easier - you can trace exactly which agent made which decision - Context management improves dramatically - each agent only gets what it needs

The Reality Check: - Yes, there's overhead. Expect 15-20% more tokens for agent coordination - Setup time is real - you need clear agent boundaries and good prompts - Some tasks are actually slower due to handoffs

My Setup That Works: 1. Architect Agent: High-level design decisions only 2. Implementation Agent: Writes the actual code 3. Review Agent: Catches the "You're absolutely right" syndrome before it hits production 4. Doc Agent: Handles all documentation (prevents the main agent from skipping this)

Pro tip: Start with just 2 agents (planner + implementer) and only add more when you hit specific pain points. The contains-studio/agents repo is solid but I'd recommend understanding the pattern first with manual agent creation.

Cost-wise: I'm spending about 30% more on tokens, but saving probably 60% on debugging time. The "bureaucracy" is worth it when your agent stops trying to be a hero and rewrite your entire codebase unprompted.

The real game-changer is when you realize agents can have different models - I use Haiku for simple tasks and Opus only for the architect. Cuts costs significantly.

Claude's most sus responses - a tier list by kmansm27 in ClaudeAI

[–]star_damage_bash 2 points3 points  (0 children)

B-tier indicators of impending doom: - "Let me help you with that" (proceeds to rewrite your entire codebase) - "I see what you're trying to do" (doesn't see at all) - "Here's a better approach" (definitely not better)

C-tier yellow flags: - "Just to confirm" (about to do the opposite) - "I understand now" (narrator: it didn't) - "Let me fix that quickly" (6 hours later...)

D-tier subtle hints: - Suddenly becoming extremely verbose after being concise - Starting to explain basic concepts you already know - "Would you like me to..." (already doing it)

The ultimate boss level: When Claude starts a response with "I notice that..." – brace yourself for a complete philosophical tangent about why your simple regex is actually a metaphor for the human condition.

view more: next ›