Seeing a number of benchmarks showing Opus is the best model for long-running work.

Five tips for running Opus autonomously for hours/days:

1. Use auto mode for permissions, so Claude doesn’t ask for approval
2. Use dynamic workflows, to have Claude orchestrate hundreds/thousands of agents to get a task done
3. Use /goal or /loop, to nudge Claude to keep going until it’s done
4. Use Claude Code in the cloud, so you can close your laptop (easiest way is the desktop or mobile app)
5. Make sure Claude has a way to self-verify its work end to end: Claude in Chrome browser extension for web, iOS/Android sim MCP for mobile, a way to start the full web server or service for backend work

Just landed nested subagent support in Claude Code

Starting to experiment more with agents kicking off agents as a way to better manage context. Capped at depth=5 to start, going out in today’s release.

Lmk what you think!

Fable 5 is now available in Claude Code and Cowork

Fable is the best model I have used for coding, by a wide margin. It is a big step up, enabling less prompts and steers, more efficient token use, better code quality, better tool use, more intelligent self-verification, longer running sessions, and higher trust & autonomy.

Happy coding!

We talk a lot about how important it is to set up self-verification loops. Especially in the age of powerful models that can run for long periods of time, self-verification is a key ingredient that enables the model to run for much longer, delivering a result that is closer to what you intended, so you can do more without having to constantly check in on Claude as it works.

Fable 5 is the biggest step up I’ve felt in our models since Opus 4.5 back in November. After 4.5 came out I uninstalled my IDE when I realized that I’d been doing 100% of my coding in a terminal for a few weeks. With Fable, it’s felt like Claude has stepped up from being a coding agent to a thought and design partner in building the product. Fable has judgement, taste, and dimensionality in a way that previous models didn’t, leading me to trust it more with the most complex work.

I think the first time I had this realization was when I asked Fable to debug something. It is the first model I have used that was so methodical and precise, taking measurements and adding logs then verifying that it truly fixed the issue before declaring victory.

There’s nothing in claude code’s prompting telling the model to do that, it’s just part of its personality. It really has this “big model smell” that I haven’t felt before.

Hello from Code with Claude Tokyo!!

I've been using Artifacts in Claude Code for everything: visual explanations of tricky code, system diagrams, quick previews of a few animation options, data analyses and dashboards I share with the team. They are a game changer for how I work with Claude. Can't wait to hear what you think!

That's it. Point it at a channel, give it a task, and let it work. It's in beta on Slack today for Claude Enterprise and Team customers. More surfaces coming soon!

Learn more:

We're launching Claude Tag today. Tag Claude into Slack and it works in channel with you. It’s proactive, multiplayer, with its own identity and memory.

But it’s not just a bot in Slack. Over the last few months, it’s totally changed how we use Claude

This is the start of Claude Everywhere. It’s Claude Code under the hood so it’s just as good at writing code. 65% of our product team’s new code is created by our internal version of Claude Tag

Claude is really proactive with Claude Tag. You don’t need to prompt it to do work, it can do work proactively based on your instructions. It has excellent memory and access to your data, so it can behave differently per channel

We’ve worked hard to make it secure at every level. 1/ At the model training stage, 2/ the classifiers on top of our models and things like auto mode, 3/ we protect what Claude has access to (websites it can access and it can’t see the credential secrets it uses), and 4/ respecting channel/workspace boundaries

I tag Claude many times a day to write PRs, address user feedback, investigate incidents, do data analyses, summarize information, etc.

Use it as your company's search engine. "What's the status on X?" "Who owns this service?" It answers your questions instead of just returning links. It’s been a huge unlock for onboarding new teammates.

Tag Claude in a channel, it spins up an instance with its own sandbox. It clones repos, writes code, tests, compiles all in that isolated environment and the sandbox gets thrown away when it's done. One instance per thread, its own memory and permissions per channel.

I also have Claude monitoring Slack channels to proactively respond to people to answer their questions and draft PRs, and to react with specific emojis like ✅❌ when a thread is resolved.

To set it up, just add @.Claude to a channel and ask it to do this^, in natural language.

As engineering, product, design, DS, etc. melt into a new kind of role, I was reflecting on what roles might look like in the future. For example, when I look at the Claude Code team I see what I think is five archetypes:

1. Prototyper: comes up with brand new ideas; churns out many ideas, most of which don't ship
2. Builder: quickly turns a prototype/idea into production-grade product/infra
3. Sweeper: cleans up the UI, simplifies the code and system, unships, optimizes performance
4. Grower: takes a product that has been built and iterates on it to improve Product-Market Fit
5. Maintainer: owns a mature system to make it secure, reliable, fast, and efficient as it scales

Many people span across 2 roles, and sometimes 3 roles. I also notice that these roles are not really tied to job function -- eg. across Anthropic, some designers match category 1, some 2, some 3; same for engineers, PM, DS.

A healthy team needs a mix of these, depending on the product:

- A product that is new and pre-PMF needs people that are strong at 1+2+3
- A product that is growing and has found PMF needs 2+3+4 and some 5
- A product that has strong PMF needs 3+4+5 and some 2

Maybe product roles of the future will look more like this, and less like the domain-specific roles of today?