> I just can't figure how _how_ to burn that much money a month responsibly.

From my experience, this happens essentially by three means:

- Level 0 (beginner users) long lived conversations: If you dont get in the habit of compressing, or otherwise manually forcing the model to summarize/checkpoint its work, you will often find people perpetually reusing the same conversation. This is especially true for _beginners_, which did not spend time curating their _base_ agent knowledge. They end up with a single meta conversation with huge context where they feel the agent is "educated", and feel like any new conversation with the agent is a loss of time because they have to re-educate it.

- Level 1 (intermediate users) heavy explicit use of subagents: Once you discover the prompt pattern of "spawn 5 subagents to analyze your solution, each analyzing a different angle, summarize their findings", it can become addictive. It's not a bad habit per se, but if you're not careful it can drastically overspend your credits.

Level 3 (expert users) extreme multitasking. Just genuinely having 10 worktrees perpetually in parallel and cycling between them in between agent responses. Again, not necessarily bad in itself, but can exponentially conse credits.

I’ve seen another pattern, I call it “The Document Mongerer”:

I regularly work in a largish monolith. We have micro services too, but most things are in the monolith. Over the years there have been multiple pushes to split it up into micro services. These efforts invariably fail because the _goal_ is the micro service architecture itself instead of something useful to the company, like the ability to do fast releases or better organized code.

Anyways, in the past few months I’ve seen multiple people individually ‘attack’ this insane goal with AI. The first step is always to generate massive amounts of documentation describing the current state of code and proposing areas to split up. Then, after the engineer generates this huge store of documents, they say ‘looked what I created’ and then drop it and move on to some other shiny toy. No one will ever read these documents. They are out of date before they ever get ‘completed’, their sole usage is to waste credits.

> Just genuinely having 10 worktrees perpetually in parallel and cycling between them in between agent responses. Again, not necessarily bad in itself, but can exponentially conse credits.

I'm pretty sure that growth is linear.

Missing here: some organizations were rewarding high token usage as productivity without critical evaluation. People were afraid to be in the bottom because outcomes weren't being measured.

It is a giant Goodhart's law lesson

Totally agree!

Bonus level "I have a hammer, all I see is nails": using Claude Code for random non-coding work, like dataset cleaning. It's really convenient to have a script spawning Haikus via `claude` CLI and feeding them prompts and JSON files. Money burn potential: practically unbounded, but also it's real work that the product people wanted done, so of course it has a cost associated with it. I'd be bewildered if anyone complained.

Where is level 2?

level 99 - They're using Gas Town

I’m basically doing lvl 3. There’s not a single port in my local worktree’s .env that’s not guaranteed to be unique across all worktrees. Skills for agent to start their own managed dev server, launch their own isolated instance of chrome etc. literally end-to-end code and debug the entire app. I do have to say though you have to know the app inside out and have to have a pretty well groomed backlog in order to run them all in parallel and actually benefit from it.

as a new user of agents, i am realizing i'm using a strategy basically identical to level 0. is the typical approach to just make a CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md and start a new thread for each task or is it more complicated than that?

I spend about $3k/month (subsidized by the Claude Max plan).

I guess I fall under level 3 (2?): I typically have 3-6 agents working simultaneously on the same feature, they each make worktrees, code, run tests and put up PR’s. I also have Github actions which scan for regressions and security issues on each PR.

It makes my development cycle extremely fast: I request a feature and just look at Github and look for changes to my human readable outputs, settle on a PR, merge, repeat.

The issue is that I am now the bottleneck in my system. I find myself working basically non-stop, because there is always more to do. (Yes I know I can automate the acceptance criteria but that turns to slop real fast)

How do you compress or otherwise force a model to checkpoint?

What about Level 2?

>> Again, not necessarily bad in itself,

yeah, it is bad. Human brain is not able to properly assess this amount of changes. To understand even a small change you need a lot of capacity. To understand thousands of lines - impossible.

This is pure slop pouring into prod and we can see more and more consequences of this in all big corps's products - things start to break more and more exponentially faster.