Only similarity it has to Opus 4.6 is the 4 in the name. I do not understand these dishonest comparisons. OOS models are vool, cheap and promising for a future -- but why are we pretending they are better than they are?
Speak for yourself. I found switching from Opus 4.7 to be completely painless and in fact, due to the reliability of Anthropic’s API, less of a friction despite slower response times. Zero issues on a large mono repro
Hi, I am happy it works well for you. For me personally I struggle finding good use-cases in general for these OOS models. I am lightly technical but I do not manually code. So my flow is /grill-me (can take hours), make plan, review plan with 2. model, implement, review after implementation.
Maybe it is because my tasks are usually chunkier, or because I cant code myself that I struggle using cheaper models. Feels like at every stage of this process SOTA model improves it by 5%, which adds up.
But I am maybe ignorant of Opus level. My main driver is 5.5 and Opus is there for frontend and 2. opinion. In a past I also used Claude models for the chatting phase, but 5.5 took over recently. Maybe Deepseek is closer to Opus and I just overestimated the model compared to 5.5? I tried to give it benefit of being similar.
Recently I started experimenting with Deepseek Flash, maybe hoping if plan is solid enough it can implement quickly and cheaply, but for now it feels not worth it.
How do you use the model to see the benefits? Have you tried 5.5 and can you compare to that one as well?
In my experience, deep seek models are massively overrated in terms of how good they actually are at agantic usage, coding and writing, just because they are kind of the first open source entrant and the name a lot of people know. Try GLM 5.1, coding and writing just because they are kind of the first open source entrant and the name a lot of people know. Try GLM 5.1.
What provider are you using? I have it a shot through open router and saw some weird half formed words coming through occasionally, would love to switch over and give it a proper go
I was actually recently thinking about similar idea. I am someone who started coding post LLMs and have basic technical understanding. I know what loops, variables, API, backend bla bla is. I learned bunch more since then but I am not capable of making decisions based on git diff alone. And I want to. I want to because I think increasing my skills is still super important, even in AI era. The models are getting better, but are still limited by their core design -- for now it does not seem like they will replace humans.
So getting assistance in the review, in making the decisions and giving me more clarity feels interesting.
Maybe its people like me, who became involved into coding after the LLMs who might be your niche.
One thing I dont understand, the UI/UX? Is this visible only on git itself? Or can I get it working in Codex?
We've wondered about what the review experience should look like for newly technical or non-technical people now that they are increasingly putting up PRs themselves. These people will be less opinionated about certain technical decisions in general so maybe the future looks like review processes very personalized to your experience level and your background. Definitely a lot to think about
Right now the chapters UI is only available on our website but we're exploring possible integrations and/or a desktop app
