I am working on an absolutely gargantuan project using Claude Code. My workflow is like this: Open a chat window in a Project, containing context documents, instructions on how to write Work Orders Shared chat memory on Work through conceptual ideas in Claude Chat, and ultimately have it write a Work Order for Claude Code Feed the work order to Claude Code, which produces a Findings & Progress md file Feed that back into the Claude Chat for engineering the next WO I was reading a lot about how, apparently, Anthropic recommends Opus5 for helping develop thorough prompts. I have been using Sonnet5 to do this for about 3 months for this project, so I decided to switch it up. Opus5 is… I don’t even know? It is significantly more wordy. Which I though might not be a bad thing for Claude Code, but it gets stuff wrong, constantly . Sonnet5 has fed Claude Code information that was corrected by the Code session. Not often, maybe 3-4 times between 5 different chats and 90 Work Orders In the 10 work orders that Opus5 was given to draft , it gave Claude Code more than 15 things that needed to be corrected from its own statements. “That findings doc corrected me on seven things, and most of them were load-bearing. Worth stating plainly before we talk about the build:” What in the hizeck? I know Opus5 has gotten a bad rap around here, but this seems egregious to me. I have spent hundreds of hours, and Sonnet actually seems to hear my information more clearly. It’s like Opus infers way too much without asking if it is understanding, and just runs with it and has almost demolished my project more in one 10 work orders than Sonnet has in 90. Anyone experience this? Am I just ass at prompt engineering? submitted by /u/theGroundedGoose
Originally posted by u/theGroundedGoose on r/ClaudeCode
You must log in or # to comment.