I’m agree that Opus 4.6 is a big improvement, especially when looking at these “build X from scratch” types of problems. Twitter is full of these examples, and the results look amazing. At the same time, those aren’t great proxies how coding works on real projects. It’s a lot more back and forth, interactively planning, producing clean code that scales, and finally ending up with something that works well. The deeper I dig, the more I stumble upon things that annoy me about 4.6. More importantly, those were things that 4.5 did incredibly well and why I liked it so much in the first place. I just finished a session where I wanted to take a step back from what we already build, and ideate the concept from the ground up. My prompt started with “Don’t look at the existing code…” and sure enough that’s the first thing Opus 4.6 did. Reran with 4.5 and it did as it was asked. Another one I asked it to create a brief, before giving it detailed context what it should contain. Instead it started implementing the concept. Tried it in 4.5, it creates the briefing as asked. There were a couple of examples more like this. It might sound like a minor thing, but this is the exact behavior I got so frustrated by GPT 5.1 to 5.2. It’s the reason why I liked Opus 4.5 so much. I don’t want to spark the Codex vs. Opus debate, but codex 5.3 is a clear improvement on all fronts for me. Sadly, i cannot say the same thing about Opus 4.6. Did you notice something similar? submitted by /u/gopietz
Originally posted by u/gopietz on r/ClaudeCode
You must log in or # to comment.