Analysis of Opus 5's 'Contrition'
slowmovintarget
17 points
3 comments
July 28, 2026
Related Discussions
Found 5 related stories in 51.4ms across 3,705 title embeddings via pgvector HNSW
- Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with? numeri · 825 pts · August 14, 2026 · 65% similar
- Elevated Errors for Opus 5 TimCTRL · 93 pts · July 26, 2026 · 55% similar
- Benchmarking Opus 5 on SlopCodeBench dhorthy · 216 pts · July 27, 2026 · 54% similar
- Why I prefer Opus 5 to Fable 5 novlrdotcom · 21 pts · July 28, 2026 · 49% similar
- Try sending "see the below –" to Opus 5 Klaster_1 · 21 pts · July 30, 2026 · 49% similar
Discussion Highlights (3 comments)
urbandw311er
Does this work? Appreciate honest testimonials from anybody unrelated to the OP or author.
nightshift1
Interesting. I will try some of of those instructions but I don't mind much about the tics. My actual complaint: end-of-turn summaries that are undecipherable unless you watched the session closely. Both Opus and Fable regularly ends hours of work with status updates phrased in crystal clear terms like: "**V2** debug-helper gate (R4d) | Medium-risk | Gate on `?debug=1` URL param at 3 fixture sites — **not** a localStorage flag (`browser_page` clears it every test). 284 debug-API calls ride the fixture, so R4d goes last+alone"
bomewish
Bit frustrating. any kind of benchmark or even a few examples showing that this produces better outputs would have been nice.