Agreed. It's not that the designs it produces are bad necessarily, they're just very same-y. People often talk about the bootstrap era, but that wasn't as bad because bootstrap wasn't so strongly associated with low-effort slop projects (low-effort on the frontend maybe, but not the project as a whole).
The comparison is pretty accurate though. The moment anyone dared to stray from the bootstrap defaults is when the whole thing would go to shit.
Every steaming pile said less about the development effort and so much more about the project management. This same boneheaded top-down approach is why AI isn't working for anyone without being willing to pour as much effort into babysitting as just writing the damn code yourself.
Old adages continue to ring true and as loud as ever. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
> but that wasn't as bad because bootstrap wasn't so strongly associated with low-effort slop projects (low-effort on the frontend maybe, but not the project as a whole)
They were, at least for that era. Just maybe not at AI-scale.
Like you had to know a little HTML in the bootstrap era. I made what I thought was a pretty nifty landing page but I got endless complaints because “it looked like bootstrap”
> Remember: Claude is capable of extraordinary creative work. Don't hold back, show what can truly be created when thinking outside the box and committing fully to a distinctive vision.
Try this if you have access to Claude Design, go to sites you like, grab the html/css and a few screenshot and ask it to build a project, it makes an almost 1:1 reproduction. place those files into ur frontend project
Found it on reddit after Claude produced the lamest looking generic forms for all the pages on a project I had it build. This did a pass over it and basically fixed it all one shot.
>Blur your eyes or step back
>Can you still perceive hierarchy?
>Is anything jumping out at you?
Telling an eyeless clanker to "blur your eyes" is just so ridiculous. "Is anything jumping out at you?" That's quite a thing for a machine to reason about, and reads like a waste of tokens. I'm not sure who is writing these things, but they seem rather clueless.
Does it work? Maybe. I'm just really skeptical after reading through that repo that any of this leads to actually better user interfaces.
I'm pretty sure I'd have better luck just telling the LLM explicitly what I want, because experience in UI/UX is still better than what an LLM would slop out on its own.
I keep getting Claude telling me to "use the frontend-design skill!", and this is it?
> NEVER use generic AI-generated aesthetics like overused font families (Inter, Roboto, Arial, system fonts), cliched color schemes (particularly purple gradients on white backgrounds), predictable layouts and component patterns, and cookie-cutter design that lacks context-specific character.
I think it's very clear what it's supposed to do from that text. Just read it at face value.
Whether it does anything useful or not is another matter. I don't think Anthropic or anyone else is doing evals on these skills, and for something subjective like design that would be especially hard anyway.
In other words, does this skill actually change the designs you get out in a positive way, consistently? Who knows? But it's certainly good marketing for Anthropic that whenever agentic web design gets brought up, someone will definitely mention this skill and confidently claim that they get better results by using it, without anything except social proof to back that up.
For years I would use free fonts and spend hours picking them out and getting depressed because they all had something wrong with them…. You get what you pay for.
For a recent project I really liked a font which was in the Adobe Fonts collection and when I had to set stuff in that font with Pillow I gladly bought the font from the foundry because it looks great and saves hours of searching for a “free” font, that is “free” as in puppy.
I've been wondering for a while if ignoring most of that bubble and whatever it cooks up might be a wrong move on my part.
Glad to see that it's just noise.
I suppose the biggest effects these skills have is to prime the user to expect something positive.
Actually kinda like what we do with LLMs. Just put a word in their context window and they suddenly start behaving different because probabilities changed.
Everyone should read through the (very short) skill file. Are we supposed to be this naive or dimwitted? LLM marketing is a transparent swindle at this point.
Are they also going to refund all the extra usage api $$$ people spent in the last month?
Also I don’t know how “improving our Code Review tool” is going to improve things going forward, two of the major issues were intentional choices. No code review is going to tell them to stop making poor and compromising decisions.
Even for all of us plan users, where we got barely any use from our plan because we'd destroy our 5h and 1w usage limits, also unlikely, after all they have an out of "your usage limits are guaranteed to be 5x of Pro users" (who are also being screwed).
Of course, all their vibe coding is being done with effectively infinite tokens, so...
this is one reason i will not pay for extra usage - it is an incentive for them to be inefficient, or at least to not spend any effort on improving my token usage efficiency.
It’s interesting to watch Ant try to ship every value-add product feature they can while they still have the SOTA model for agentic. When an open weights equivalent to Opus 4.5’s agentic capabilities comes out, I expect massive shifts of workloads away from Claude.
Don’t get me wrong, I think their business model is still solid and they will be able to sell every token they can generate for the next couple years. They just won’t be critical path for AI diffusion anymore, which will be good for all sides.
Reality is Ant can supply X tokens and they see demand for 10*X tokens. So they’ll charge whatever the top 10% of users are willing to pay, and slowly degrade the value of the subscriptions until everyone has moved to another supplier or migrated to the 10% price point. The draconian ToS that they sometimes enforce is their mechanism to degrade subscription value over time. Expect agent-sdk to be next on the chopping block, moving from oauth supported to api only. When they switch it they will rightly point out the docs never explicitly said it was allowed.
People don't pay double the $100 account in fixed recurrent payments if they don't intend to use a lot more than they would use in the $100 subscription.
Perhaps people at Anthropic should ask Sonnet (or Kimi, it's much better value) how power laws and pareto distributions work? You are advertising for people who can justify a virtually unlimited amount of tokens, why is it surprising that they would use as many as you're offering them in the plan?
PS: interesting that you'd use a throwaway account to post this
If you manage developers or product folk, do you allow them to work when you're not looking over their shoulder? All developers can be managers/team leads now. You plan, you delegate, you review.
You're welcome to not do this, surely that's appropriate in quite a few areas of work, but many of us are because we can get more work done than if we we're micromanaging every line of code change. For startups, where a bit of quality can suffer in favor of finding market fit, this is huge.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. `claude remote` on a secure vm is basically all you need to operate a factory from your phone. I suspect a lot of people with your line of reasoning are stuck on human in the loop while awake level of AI use. Anthropic has no interest in that long term and all of their product moves validate that.
Every morning it summarizes a bunch of stuff for me, suggests me PRs to review, emails to reply to, freshly cloned any new repos, pulled all others, presents me with the suggested approaches to my PRs of that day, and gives me a list of my slack mentions that look more urgent.
This is just the morning ones, and saves shitloads of time of clicking around from tool to tool, freeing up time for the thinking and deciding.
How? Most of what was mentioned requires discretion and judgment. You can question whether an LLM would be able to offer that, but there’s no script that can do b it.
Different use cases. I want aws-cli for scripting, repeated cases, and embedding those executions for very specific results. I want this for exploration and ad-hoc reviews.
Nobody is taking away the cli tool and you don't have to use this. There's no "turns into" here.
Oh I think you misinterpreted my comment! I am very much a fan of this, wasn't throwing shade. I am just remarking on how my side-project scope today dwarfs my side-project scope of a year or two ago.
They buried the lede. The last half of the article with ways to ground your dev environment to reduce the most common issues should be its own article. (However implementing the proper techniques somewhat obviates the need for CodeRabbit, so guess it’s understandable.)
I had the same question — I understand that the Actions control plane has costs on self-hosted runners that GitHub would like to recoup, but those costs are fixed per-job. Charging by the minute for the user’s own resources gives the impression that GitHub is actually trying to disincentivize third-party runners.
Self-hosted runner regularly communicates with the control plane, and control plane also needs to keep track of job status, logs, job summaries, etc.
8h job is definitely more expensive to them than a 1 minute one, but I'd guess that the actual reason is that this way they earn more money, and dissuade users from using a third party service instead of their own runners.
That's generous, but doesn't seem consistent with how Microsoft does business. Also, if that's the case why does self-hosted cost the same as the lowest hosted tier?
https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/blob/main/plugins/...
reply