I’ll start by saying I love Claude and this is more a discussion of what Fable does well and doesn’t. I see a lot of posts talking about how it excels in creativity and planning. Personally, I have found it to be more of a creative implementer as opposed to creative architecturally. Let me explain and I’ll give you context on my journey (skip to the last paragraph if you could give af, totally reasonable). Originally I was using a combo of ChatGPT and Claude. I found that I could gain the best of both worlds by using ChatGPT as a project/product manager, especially since it had no limit on chat and came with cross chat memory out of the box, and Claude as my coder passing summaries back from Claude and complex well thought out prompts from gpt. I had a documentation protocol with shared docs in Google Drive set inside projects. Around opus 4.7 I moved to Claude full time, it crossed the point where talking to it even on a limited basis (I’m on $200 max plan, so not that limited). Was worth more than infinite chat and memory recall with the best gpt model available to me at the time (I went up to the $100 plan), so at the time 5.5 pro. It has only reinforced that choice over and over since, so again if it wasn’t clear contextually I have loved and still love Claude’s models. Now to my topic point, this is more a hey do you agree or tell me what I may be doing wrong/you’re doing right. I have been enjoying the fable preview like no one’s business burning through my full plan even using the $100 credit given to me. It does AMAZING work but I have noticed that while it may be more creative on the general idea front it is a lateral move on the code approach creativity front. It if anything has a greater tendency to get stuck on an idea or path and utilize its intelligence to either code entire cities around a poorly thought out plan or to get creative making scenarios/tests that reinforce its approach. I have found more than other models I need to push it to think outside its initial conclusions/read of the scenario. Once I do give it the “let’s make it a universal brain approach rather than construct umpteenth brain to argue with each other” idea it immediately recognizes its own folly. It stays set on adding another brain rather than considering how can I think about this from a different perspective/was my initial approach flawed? It’s by far the best implementer out of the bunch, writes truly beautiful code. Just wondering if others have noticed what I’d describe as obstinance. submitted by /u/python_510
Originally posted by u/python_510 on r/ClaudeCode