The audacity and confidence with which it says things when it’s wrong are on another level. Fair. I changed my answer three times. The pattern is worth naming: everything I got from reading the code was wrong. Everything I measured held. You caught two of the three. So don’t trust me. Check it yourself — this takes ten seconds and needs no model. Everything it measured was wrong too. I would work in plan mode for most basic features, run 10x “gray area,” “verify,” and “regression” sub-agents on a plan, then implement the plan and spend an hour reading the changes and fixing shit. After that, I’d run /code-review again and again. It’s just bad. In my experience, you can’t trust Opus. Yesterday, I ran /code-review on a two file test project with 140 lines of code. I had to run /code-review three times, and today I’ll continue because there are so many code smells even in those few lines. It’s like infinite token consumption loop. Nothing it does can be trusted, and I have to second guess everything. I constantly have to tell Opus that it’s wrong, and only after multiple loops does it finally do what is actually required. I understand that most users don’t read the code and have never supported a project for other users. But it can’t be that I’m alone in this, can i? Am I crazy? submitted by /u/Efficient-Part5344
Originally posted by u/Efficient-Part5344 on r/ClaudeCode