I was a 4.6 acolyte from April til the fable drop, lost that quick, cancelled and took a break, came back a month later, tried opus 5 and liked it, so unpinned 4.6.

Results were great at first, and they're still not terrible, but I have noticed a regression in accuracy, so to speak, where I am pointing out issues that are quite obvious in review.

I pretty much use sonnet 5 low/medium when I have a plan to solve a simple problem and depending on scope, opus low/medium for more complex/bigger scope implementation, and only go high when it's very complex or I'm spitballing architecture/solutions and iterating plan. Never go xhigh or max.

The verbosity is insane though, opus 5 documents everything and just regurgitates whatever lead it to the design choice in there, which makes it more opaque because it's talking about something that was discussed once in a session that no one else can see (except their backend ofc)

I don't even try to steer it away from that with harness, because it doesn't work and just ends up agonizing over whether it should write some comment. Three paragraphs waffling on that on verbose output

I did however have it write a script that basically is git add -A -p for comments though, haha.

I'm $20/month, have all my telemetry toggles off, don't really over engineer prompt/context, just some basic skills for repeated patterns.

It was the wrong time for the GP to drop that subscription from $200 to $20, because $200 gets you a metric assload of cognition while $20 gets you nothing beyond what a local model running on your own graphics card can deliver.