Claude Opus 4.6 extra usage promo
support.claude.com
support.claude.com
The order of priority is: everyone using the API (you don't want to calculate the price) → everyone on a $200/month plan → everyone on a $20/month plan → every free user.
itd be nice to know how much the session context window applies wrt token caching, but disabling all those skills and stopping sending a screenshot every couple messages gets that 5hour limit and weekly limit a bunch better
This morning: (new chat) 42 seconds of thinking, 20 lines of code changed in 4 files = 5% usage
Last night: 25 minutes of thinking, 150 lines of code generated in 10 new files = 7% usage
Let's be perfectly clear: if user actions had anything to do with hitting these limits, the limits would be prominently displayed within the tool itself, you'd be able to watch it change in real time, and you'd be able to pinpoint your usage per each conversation and per each message within that conversation.
The fact that you cannot do that is not because they can't be bothered to add such a feature, but because they want to be able to tweak those numbers on the backend while still having plausible deniability and being able to blame it on the user.
Instead, the little "usage stats" they give you is grouped by the hour and only split between input and output tokens, telling you nothing.
Now let's assume you want to send a CD worth of data to Opus 4.6. 700 megabytes * $10 (price per million input tokens) / 4 (rounding down one megabyte to roughly 250k "tokens") = $1750. For Opus 4.6 to return a CD amount of data back to you: $37.50 * 700 / 4 = ~$6.5k.
A terabyte worth of data with a 50:50 input/output ratio would cost you $5.7 million. A terabyte worth of data with a 50:50 input/output ratio on gpt-5.2-pro would cost you $25.2 million. (Note: OpenAI's API pricing still hasn't been updated to reflect 5.3 prices.)
So we get layers upon layers upon layers upon layers upon layers of obfuscation to hide those numbers from you when you simply subscribe for a fixed monthly fee!
Most people care about getting the right bytes.
Writing self-serving LinkedIn productivity porn
That would be heartening, if I wasn’t consuming tokens 10x as fast as expected, and they just had attribution bugs.
Do you have references to this being documented as the actual issue, or is this just speculation?
I want to support Anthropic, but with the Codex desktop app *so much better* than Anthropic’s combined with the old “5 back and forths with Opus and your quota is gone”, it’s hard to see going back
This has not been my experience at all. The only time I even got close to this is multiple long sessions that had multiple compacts.
The key is if you hit compact, start a new session.
As for Anthropic's $100 Max subscription, it's almost always better to start new sessions for tasks since a long conversation will burn your 5-hour usage limit with just a few prompts (assuming they read many files). It's also best to start planning first with Claude, providing line numbers and exact file paths prior, and drilling down the requirements before you start any implementation.
I genuinely have no idea what people mean when I read this kind of thing. Are you abusing the word "prompt" to mean "conversation"? Or are you providing a huge prompt that is meant to spawn 10 subagents and write multiple new full-stack features in one go?
For most users, the $20 Pro subscription, when used with Opus, does not hit the 5-hour limit on "a single prompt or two", i.e. 1-2 user messages.
> spanned a couple different codebases
There you go.
If you're looking to prevent this issue I really recommend you set up a number of AGENTS.md files, at least top-level and potentially nested ones for huge, sprawling subfolders. As well as @ mentioning the most relevant 2-3 things, even if it's folder level rather than file.
Not just for Claude, it greatly increases speed and reduces context rot for any model if they have to search less and more quickly understand where things live and how they work together.
It's either that, or you have a lot of skills loaded or something. I use Claude for hours a day and usually don't run out of tokens.
It will spend a lot of time grokking the codebase, which would consume more tokens on larger projects.
My experience has been that I can usually work for a few hours before hitting a rate limit on the $20 subscription. My work time does not frequently overlap with core business hours in PDT, however. I wonder whether there is an aspect of this that is based on real-time dynamic usage.
Using the Max plan with tools like OpenClaw violates Anthropic's ToS [1].
The API gives you the same flexibility without the risk of getting your account suspended.
[1] https://www.anthropic.com/legal/consumer-terms (Section 3-7)
i don't want to think about how to hack a tool i'm paying for not locking me out because "i promped wrong"
However, when I tried out the SuperPower skill and had multiple agents working on several projects at the same time, it did hit the 5-hour usage limit. But SuperPower hasn't been very useful for me and wastes a lot of tokens. When you want to trade longer running time for high token consumption, you only get a marginal increase in performance.
So people, if you are finding yourself using up tokens too quickly, you probably want to check your skills or MCPs etc.
I forget the exact phrasing, but it was impossible to miss unless you'd put everything in the equivalent of a Ralph loop and gone AFK or put the terminal in the background for extended periods.
However I run like 3x concurrent sessions that do multiple compacts throughout, for like 8hrs/day, and I go through a 20x subscription in about 1/2 week. So I'm extremely skeptical of these negative claims.
Edit: However I stay on top of my prompting efficiency, maybe doing some incredibly wasteful task is... wasteful?
Claude's subscription model is forcing you to space out equal sessions unnaturally during day - but you don't work like that. You work N hours of day and then go to have personal life/sleep - meaning you sometimes code more and sometimes you don't. Forcing you to do only little work and then lock you out for extra usage will make you pay much more when actually using the model much less - because the times you are not coding would even out or even benefit you in credits
Tl;dr - it's claude's greedy credit system that sucks, i am not going to pay $100 for overcoming these weird limits, i would much rather use gemini cli
Nope. I'm putting a lot of trust in American Express and the continued availability of Claude competitors.
Doesn't appear to include the new model though, only the state-of-yesterdays-art (literally yesterdays).
This bug has been for years: in Claude (web or app), if you create a new chat at the middle of existing chat thinking or tool calling, the existing chat will be broken, either losing data, or become unusable.
It's unbelievable Anthropic worth hundreds of billions but can't fix this.
Sometimes I think it’s better to just use code tab to chat knowing that’s more reliable.
Anytime I run into a bug like this, part of me wants to go calculate how much of humanity's collective time has been wasted by one company not fixing a trivial bug. It's got to be a lot.
Go to https://claude.ai/settings/usage, turn on extra usage and enable the promo from the notification afterwards.
I received €42, top up was not required and auto-reload is off.
Unless they somehow say, "You owe us $181,902, bucko! Turning off auto-reload just meant 'Don't add more money to pay off your debt!' It didn't mean, 'Don't incur more debt!' SUCKER!"
Ah well. Back to Codex.