Yesterday a free security scanner, today scorpion antivenom research. Anthropic is having a very strange and very good week

i'm begging you to paste this into Claude Code before you open your next binary. it splits the work between Sonnet, Opus and Fable and makes Claude back every claim with an address, so you stop trusting clean C that quietly misreads a signed check. all 3 model prompts and the CLAUDE.md evidence contract are in the article. steal the prompt before your decompiler output starts lying to you:

THIS IS THE REVERSE ENGINEERING SETUP EVERY CLAUDE USER SHOULD STEAL most people decompiling with Claude never check the output against the binary. The setup: Sonnet 5.5 builds the map, Opus 5.5 explains the hard parts, and Fable 5.1 only attacks a theory that already passed its tests. Every claim needs an address, an xref or a test log, so guesses stay out of the spec. You practice on a binary where the answer is already known: cc -O2 -o samples/record samples/record.c the split: → Sonnet 5.5 ($2/$10) maps imports, strings and xrefs into function_map.md → Opus 5.5 ($4/$20) writes spec.md with 2 competing readings → Fable 5.1 ($10/$50) finds the 3 ways that spec breaks → the original binary decides who's right Fable only gets called when: → both of Opus's readings pass the tests → the logic spans a long chain of functions → you're about to build on top of it 100K input + 10K output costs about $0.30 on Sonnet, $0.60 on Opus and $1.50 on Fable. Running Fable on string dumps is how the budget disappears. the full tree CLAUDE.md sets the evidence contract (OBSERVED / INFERRED / UNKNOWN) Sonnet 5.5 maps the binary Opus 5.5 writes the spec and the minimum tests the tests run against the original binary Fable 5.1 reviews only after they pass Sonnet 5.5 turns the proven spec into code paste the tree and this prompt into Claude Code ↓ "Build a reverse engineering workflow from this tree: Write CLAUDE.md. Every claim uses CLAIM | EVIDENCE | CONFIDENCE | HOW TO VERIFY and gets an OBSERVED, INFERRED or UNKNOWN tag. On Sonnet 5.5, inventory [BINARY] into notes/function_map.md with ADDRESS | NAME | PROPOSED_ROLE | EVIDENCE | CONFIDENCE. Rename nothing. On Opus 5.5, reconstruct [FUNCTION] into notes/spec.md with two alternative readings and the tests that separate them. Run the tests against the original binary and log every result in evidence/. Call Fable 5.1 only if both readings survive. Show me the function map first and wait for my go." save it before your next decompile.

before writing any code for a new idea i do this now: make a stripe payment link (takes about 4 minutes), put it on a one-page site with 3 lines describing the product, post it in 2 communities. if nobody clicks buy in 7 days, the idea goes in the trash. ai made building fast, but it can’t tell you if anyone wants the thing.

F*ck YES... I made a prompt that stops Claude from making things up while it reverse-engineers a binary the shift: Sonnet 5.5 maps the binary for cents → Opus 5.5 rebuilds the hard logic → Fable 5.1 only reviews what already passed tests here’s 3 step guide: step 1 → drop the CLAUDE.md from the image into your project root (every claim now needs an address or a test behind it) step 2 → run Sonnet 5.5 and ask for a function map: ADDRESS | NAME | ROLE | EVIDENCE | CONFIDENCE step 3 → switch to Opus 5.5 with that map and say something like: “Reconstruct the behavior of [FUNCTION]. Write a spec plus two alternative interpretations and the minimum tests that tell them apart” the result: you pay ~$0.30 per pass instead of $1.50 on Fable, and you catch the “this loop is CRC32” mistake before it lands in your code Paste it now. Then read article below to master Claude reverse engineering:

It is becoming f*cking dangerous: you can now reverse-engineer old games and binaries with Claude. Sonnet 5.5 maps the code, Opus 5.5 rebuilds the logic, and Fable 5.1 hunts for what Opus got wrong 1. Compile a tiny C lab so you already know the right answer 2. Drop the evidence contract into CLAUDE.md 3. Open the binary in Ghidra and save the decompiled functions to evidence/ 4. Run Sonnet 5.5: a function map with addresses and confidence for every row 5. Hand the map to Opus 5.5: a plain-English spec plus two competing readings 6. Test every claim: the loop Claude calls “CRC32” turns out to be FNV-1a 7. Call Fable 5.1 only when Opus stalls: it finds the 3 weakest points in the spec A pass costs $0.30 on Sonnet and $1.50 on Fable, and every claim is tagged OBSERVED, INFERRED or UNKNOWN with an address or a test behind it Turn Claude into a reverse engineer that proves what it says before you build on it Grab all 3 prompts in the article below

THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE GOLDMINE FOR REVERSE ENGINEERING the Claude reversing setup almost nobody is running yet. The idea: Sonnet 5.5 maps the binary, Opus 5.5 rebuilds the hard logic, and Fable 5.1 only steps in to stress-test a theory that already passed its tests. No guess gets into the spec, because every claim needs an address, an xref or a test log behind it first. You start with a tiny lab binary where the answer is already known: cc -O2 -o samples/record samples/record.c here’s who does what: → Sonnet 5.5 ($2/$10) writes function_map.md with address, role, evidence and confidence → Opus 5.5 ($4/$20) turns the tricky functions into spec.md with 2 competing readings → Fable 5.1 ($10/$50) looks for the 3 ways that spec could be wrong → the tests check everything against the original binary Fable only gets called in three cases: → Opus left two readings open → a long chain of functions that depend on each other → a high-stakes review before you build on top of it 100K input + 10K output costs about $0.30 on Sonnet, $0.60 on Opus and $1.50 on Fable. Most people spend their Fable budget on listing strings. The rule that matters most: reference behavior comes from the original binary, so the model never grades its own code. the full tree CLAUDE.md holds the evidence contract (OBSERVED / INFERRED / UNKNOWN) Sonnet 5.5 builds the function map Opus 5.5 writes the spec, 2 alternatives and the minimum tests the tests run against the original binary Fable 5.1 reviews only once Opus’s theory is tested Sonnet 5.5 turns the proven spec into code paste the tree and this prompt into Claude Code ↓ “Set up a reverse engineering workflow based on this tree: Create CLAUDE.md. Every claim follows CLAIM | EVIDENCE | CONFIDENCE | HOW TO VERIFY and is tagged OBSERVED, INFERRED or UNKNOWN. On Sonnet 5.5, inventory [BINARY] and write notes/function_map.md with ADDRESS | NAME | PROPOSED_ROLE | EVIDENCE | CONFIDENCE. Keep every original name. On Opus 5.5, reconstruct [FUNCTION] into notes/spec.md with two alternative interpretations and the minimum tests that separate them. Run the tests against the original binary and save every result in evidence/. Only if both readings survive, hand the spec to Fable 5.1 and ask for the 3 highest-impact ways it could be wrong. Show me the function map first. Nothing gets reconstructed until I say go.” save it, you’ll need it later.

your Claude Code is running on demo defaults. 10 minutes of setup makes it yours. it's not a better prompt. it's a CLAUDE.md, the right model routing, and a /clear habit, set once. here's the day-one setup: 1. drop a CLAUDE.md in the repo so your rules load in every session 2. run opusplan so opus plans and sonnet does the cheap edits 3. send file lookups to haiku subagents instead of your main model 4. /clear between unrelated tasks so you stop paying to re-read old context that's a one-time setup and you feel it on the very next task the real trick isn't one killer tip, it's that the defaults are tuned for a demo, not for your repo all 10 are in the ARTICLE below:

claude code basically runs my repo now, i just review and press enter... here's why: almost all of it is free config you set up once on day 1. here's my whole setup and what it costs: required (ships with claude code) > memory → CLAUDE.md > models → opusplan (opus plans, sonnet builds) > search → haiku subagents for every file lookup > review → a critic subagent before every merge > safety → permissions in settings.json > undo → plan mode + /rewind > context → /clear between unrelated tasks optional (add when you need it) > automation → hooks that format on every write > repeatable → skills for the prompts you retype > parallel → git worktrees > research → /deep-research > escalation → an opus advisor when you're stuck > scheduling → /schedule routines the only thing on this list you need to pay for is your claude plan. everything else is included with claude code.

REA + Opus 5.5 is f*cking dangerous... Send just one prompt to Claude Code, and it will step-by-step figure out how any of your applications actually work, backing up every claim with evidence. Then, read the article below to learn how to turn Opus 5.5 into your personal reverse-engineering specialist ↓

claude code is literally Jarvis for people who can't code. > install Claude Code > feed it the article (below) containing all 10 tips > let it configure the CLAUDE.md file, permissions, and hooks for your repository > start any task in plan mode don't repeat the mistakes that cost me three months you can thank me later

honestly, how many side projects have you started this year thanks to the help of AI? I have nine. one is finished.

i still can’t believe i ran claude code on one model for my whole first month, file search included one settings change and every model gets the job it’s actually good at: → opus plans the task and steps in when you’re stuck → sonnet 5.5 does the typing → haiku runs every file search for $0.10 per million tokens → a reviewer agent tries to break your diff before you call it done opus does the thinking, the cheap ones do the grinding paste this into claude code Add this to ~/.claude/settings.json. Keep every hook, permission and plugin I already have. Then create the two agent files below and show me the diff. json { "model": "opusplan", "advisorModel": "opus", "modelSettings": { "claude-opus-5-5": { "effortLevel": "high" } } } ~/.claude/agents/Explore.md --- name: Explore description: fast read-only search. finds files, symbols and where things are used. model: haiku tools: Read, Grep, Glob --- Find exactly what was asked. Return file:line with one line of context. Never edit, never suggest fixes. ~/.claude/agents/reviewer.md --- name: reviewer description: reviews the diff before any task is called done model: opus tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash --- Assume the change is broken and find how it fails. Run the tests if there are any. One line per issue, worst first, with file:line. Never edit files. Send it to your Claude, then read the rest of the day 1 tips below 👇

my girlfriend asked why i'm on my phone during dinner i said i'm managing my team she asked what team i said 4 bots, and one of them needs me to approve an email right now

small thing that changed how i use Claude Code: i stopped asking "can you fix this?" and started asking "how will you check that it's fixed?" the second question makes it run the test, open the page and actually look at the screenshot before it says done

RIP to every Claude Code course charging $199 for a CLAUDE.md template 💀 this one prompt turns the Claude Code team's public tips into a full repo setup memory, permissions, hooks, skills, subagents, worktrees, all done in one session thank me later. the 10 tips behind it are in the article below 👇

founder vibes in 2026: 1 human, 5 Claudes

Anthropic’s own Opus 5.5 guide admits it: ask for a website with no design direction and it falls back on the same few default styles and “avoid a generic AI look” mostly swaps one default for another this is f*cking insane... so i built the harness around it, in one prompt: Opus 5.5 plans and builds, the frontend-design skill sets the taste, Playwright screenshots every section at 3 widths, anything under 8/10 gets fixed or flagged before you see it, and every decision is logged so the next site starts smarter you stop prompting pages and start signing off on screenshots paste it into Claude Code and thank me later all 10 steps, the workflow, and the full course below 👇