This matches my experience of Opus 5 being a nice improvement over Opus 4.8, but not being revolutionary like Fable felt.
I’ve now replaced my use of Opus 4.8 xhigh with Opus 5 medium, and I’m using less tokens and it’s quicker. I can understand people being annoyed by its writing style but for getting work done that really doesn’t bother me. I’ve been really enjoying using it.
I’ve observed the degradation, but I suspect what’s happening is they’re tuning it for lower inference costs. Maybe turning down the amount of thinking, maybe quantizing, maybe something else.
It seems like there’s a week by week and sometimes day by day change in performance when on a subscription plan using their harnesses.
https://marginlab.ai/trackers/claude-code/ their tracker generally shows that isn’t the case. The only times I’ve seen it drop is something broken and just before fable launched.
my issue with frontier code is that it uses a model judge for quality whereas slop code bench forces a model to grapple with its own garbage code in order to receive a functionality reward
Nice! I actually ran across this paper+benchmark recently, too. It's the first I've found that start to aim at some of the non-functional and longitudinal requirements that I think have always been an important part of writing production code.
It's especially relevant now that models are good enough to solve ~most point-in-time problems.
Some relevant but disconnected thoughts:
- deterministic scores are so nice
- what "maintainable" is is probably some high dimensional space described by these signals; it'd probably require some human labeling to figure out where this space is
- another signal I've been thinking about and I'm seeing increasingly get brought up is the state space of a system; I'm seeing formal methods pop up a lot recently
> - what "maintainable" is is probably some high dimensional space described by these signals; it'd probably require some human labeling to figure out where this space is
this is a nicely succinct way to put this - a multi-dimensional space where no single metric is really useful
state space of the system is interesting too. I would guess that for any production software with dependencies like databases/third parties that might be too hard to measure, but if you can silo off parts of your system into bounded state machines, it may be a value metric on some module behind a clean interface.
I think the kubernetes control loop model is a great instance of this, a handful of scoped components that own a control loop across a well-defined state machine, that can operate / recover in the face of most network partitions or downtime - the promise of CRDTs but rather more a pragmatic approach to it
I haven't joined your chats in a while but glad to see you put this together, I truly feel as though opus 5 is not much of an improvement. The only time i ever felt a wow factor was opus 4, 4.6 and fable pre trump admin lobotimizing
yeah this was just a start - the fastest cheapest thing we could try for a brand new model.
I'm hoping to do some more work with sol/fable in the mix as well as exploring more languages and curating the problem set to include more of the benchmark
I also kinda felt like opus4.5 was dumber than 4.1 personally, maybe a little biased since 4.5 was 2.5x faster and 2.5x cheaper seems to indicate its a smaller model
no i'm spinning those up at some point this week. here's the first few prompts I used (claude opus 5 as the research orchestrator), (these were interspersed with lots of tools and assistant messages but it should get you kicked off.
> fetch this article for slopcodebench and help me run an eval on a subset of problems with opus 5 https://arxiv.org/html/2603.24755v1
> Get all the context, fetch any mentioned repos, and then propose a plan to me.
> i have an anthropic API key in ....
> Let's do the three challenges with Opus 4.8 and Opus 5 and Fable please. I like your minimal set. Let's try it. What do you need from me?
> Actually I changed my mind. I want to do two of the easy ones you picked and then I want you to pick the one with more checkpoints, maybe one of the harder ones, not the very hardest one but one with a higher number of checkpoints.
> Actually let's do one easy, one medium, and one hard problem please. If we have a hard problem I'd like to see that.
> lets rock - i think lets just do opus 4.8 and sonnet 5 and opus 5 since we our ZDR will block fable
To what degree is this a harness/system prompt problem? Models maybe should implement new stuff with as little impact on the existing stuff as possible by default? A simple system prompt for it to always check the code after task completion for proper simplifications, abstractions and cleanups before returning to the user? Instructions to retain "story like" readability of the code.
At least for Claude Code, putting "run /simplify at the end" in an "implement the plan" skill helps a little. It still often leaves new code in bizarre places, and/or with bad/alien-sounding names and comments.
I agree this is an option, and the next thing on my radar is to try with a more realistic "factory-shaped" harness where you have feedback from linters and other models after each coding episode that refines the architecture.
For readability specifically, I've found it hard to get the models to do this with prompting. If you've talked to opus/fable for a long time on prose writing you probably felt this too
Mostly a harness problem in my experience. Slop accumulates when the agent can touch anything, so constraining it to one seam and having it add alongside rather than edit in place does more than model choice.
Really hoping that all of the attention you're bringing to the longitudinal sloppification of codebases makes it back to the labs and creates some pressure to improve that trait of the models. This new benchmark seems promising.
At the same time, I imagine it will be hard for them to prioritize this over improving flashy one-shots of impressive zero-to-one feats that demo so well and attract more customers.
Can we have simonw make "pelican on a bicycle after 1000 requests for iteration" popular?
yes the labs will always prioritize the vibeslop dopamine casino as far as I can tell - making the models useful and addictive for unsophisticated users, sometimes at the expense or at the very least at the ignorance of the needs of power users
So many benchmarks more the models themselves.. just make one unified standard to benchmark all or stop calling it “benchmarking” as this word lost its meaning.
Opus 5 is an overconfident stupid model. It tries to generate too much slop, tries to act like everything will fall. I have reversed back to fable and codex sol.
yes sol is still my daily driver for most coding tasks
I did find opus 5 quite handy for general knowledge work and visual design, without the cost of fable (e.g. the graphics in this post are made by opus 5)
but its not noticeably better than opus 4.8 in those regards, and I would not miss it if forced to go back to 4.8
We've been running automated code reviews on claude with a bunch of skills/subagents with different specialties. Any review feedback is then fed back into claude to fix. Since switching to Opus 5 I've noticed the reviews are overly pedantic, and that leads to feedback loops where each fix generates more feedback, which requires more fixes, i.e. slop. I had, for example, a simple SQL migration script with a single CREATE TABLE. After a few rounds of review, it ballooned into a complicated 200 line script.
I'm not ready to blame Opus 5 for being stupid. Perhaps we have a prompt buried somewhere that's essentially asking it to be pedantic, and it's just obeying the prompt.
I’ve now replaced my use of Opus 4.8 xhigh with Opus 5 medium, and I’m using less tokens and it’s quicker. I can understand people being annoyed by its writing style but for getting work done that really doesn’t bother me. I’ve been really enjoying using it.
It seems like there’s a week by week and sometimes day by day change in performance when on a subscription plan using their harnesses.
https://xcancel.com/danshipper/status/2080700057892815114
Quality vs cost - medium is the sweet (perhaps better too!) spot.
It's especially relevant now that models are good enough to solve ~most point-in-time problems.
Some relevant but disconnected thoughts:
- deterministic scores are so nice
- what "maintainable" is is probably some high dimensional space described by these signals; it'd probably require some human labeling to figure out where this space is
- another signal I've been thinking about and I'm seeing increasingly get brought up is the state space of a system; I'm seeing formal methods pop up a lot recently
this is a nicely succinct way to put this - a multi-dimensional space where no single metric is really useful
state space of the system is interesting too. I would guess that for any production software with dependencies like databases/third parties that might be too hard to measure, but if you can silo off parts of your system into bounded state machines, it may be a value metric on some module behind a clean interface.
I think the kubernetes control loop model is a great instance of this, a handful of scoped components that own a control loop across a well-defined state machine, that can operate / recover in the face of most network partitions or downtime - the promise of CRDTs but rather more a pragmatic approach to it
I'm hoping to do some more work with sol/fable in the mix as well as exploring more languages and curating the problem set to include more of the benchmark
I also kinda felt like opus4.5 was dumber than 4.1 personally, maybe a little biased since 4.5 was 2.5x faster and 2.5x cheaper seems to indicate its a smaller model
You ever go to forums full of entomology specialists and tell them you don’t understand their fancy terms?
If a model isn’t a step function change? Welcome to research.
> fetch this article for slopcodebench and help me run an eval on a subset of problems with opus 5 https://arxiv.org/html/2603.24755v1 > Get all the context, fetch any mentioned repos, and then propose a plan to me.
> i have an anthropic API key in .... > Let's do the three challenges with Opus 4.8 and Opus 5 and Fable please. I like your minimal set. Let's try it. What do you need from me?
> Actually I changed my mind. I want to do two of the easy ones you picked and then I want you to pick the one with more checkpoints, maybe one of the harder ones, not the very hardest one but one with a higher number of checkpoints.
> Actually let's do one easy, one medium, and one hard problem please. If we have a hard problem I'd like to see that.
> lets rock - i think lets just do opus 4.8 and sonnet 5 and opus 5 since we our ZDR will block fable
For readability specifically, I've found it hard to get the models to do this with prompting. If you've talked to opus/fable for a long time on prose writing you probably felt this too
At the same time, I imagine it will be hard for them to prioritize this over improving flashy one-shots of impressive zero-to-one feats that demo so well and attract more customers.
Can we have simonw make "pelican on a bicycle after 1000 requests for iteration" popular?
yes the labs will always prioritize the vibeslop dopamine casino as far as I can tell - making the models useful and addictive for unsophisticated users, sometimes at the expense or at the very least at the ignorance of the needs of power users
I did find opus 5 quite handy for general knowledge work and visual design, without the cost of fable (e.g. the graphics in this post are made by opus 5)
but its not noticeably better than opus 4.8 in those regards, and I would not miss it if forced to go back to 4.8
I'm not ready to blame Opus 5 for being stupid. Perhaps we have a prompt buried somewhere that's essentially asking it to be pedantic, and it's just obeying the prompt.