Remix.run Logo
seer 4 hours ago

Getting on and off fable this week has been quite interesting. For my personal work stream (big terraform monorepo, hundreds of states) I’ve using mostly superpowers to do heavy / quality work. But with fable, I tried just telling it what to do, and it produced roughly the same results without a big structured back and forth that I was accustomed to.

Then after using up all my fable allowance I figured let’s see if opus can actually work without superpowers, and no, it was all over the place doing weird things.

Thing is, superpowers produces meticulous specs and plans as a byproduct of its work, which is very useful for switching between work trees, stoping / resuming work by different people.

But to do that in Fable you have to spend way more tokens than it’s reasonable. You get similar quality result, but without the specs in between.

I’m not super sad that I’ll have to go back to opus though, with superpowers it was Fable but more structured. But I will miss the banter though - Fable is amazing for brainstorming big underspecced features.

steve_adams_86 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I like super powers because I can be more in the loop editing and understanding the plan. Letting fable loose is genuinely impressive, and probably perfect for vibe coding, but I can’t be that far away from the plan and steps for code that matters.

As for being great for vibe coding, it’s cool but I can’t justify that kind of cost for throwaway code. At this point I’ve had good experiences using fable to review code, but I’m totally content with opus for all of my workflows still. If fable was the same price I’d switch (for projects not involving biology, at least), but I’d still use something like super powers to stay in the loop.

marcus_holmes an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This. My workflow is a heavily-modified and personalised superpowers, and the docs that it produces are an asset. I tried Fable and it just ran off and did shit. Mostly that was good shit, but not all, and I would have liked to have had some input to those decisions.

I realise this is just me needing to structure my use of Fable better. But I got to a really nice place with my Opus workflow and I'm reluctant to go through that every time a new model releases.

chvid 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

(Not a Claude user) What is "superpowers"?

ahofmann 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

https://github.com/obra/superpowers

appplication 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That initially looked pretty interesting but a quick peek through issues and folks are complaining that it’s opinionated on git workflows and overriding user instructions otherwise. No thanks.

Edit: a deeper look at the issues and there are many examples of it not behaving as intended. Seems superstitious at best.

Culonavirus 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Some people just need to complicate things as a state of their natural being. What a tremendous waste of time.

2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
try-working 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is an interesting comment because it makes me want to ask the question, what is the use for fable then? For me, GPT 5.4 is enough when using recursive-mode. I do appreciate GPT 5.5 Pro for some larger research, architecture, planning tasks though. I think that's what Fable is for. A very small % of total work.

ricksunny a few seconds ago | parent | next [-]

What is the use of a genius who does great work but doesn’t document their results, only produces them? How much do companies enjoy having a structural dependency on someone like that?

notatoad 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>planning tasks though. I think that's what Fable is for.

this is how i've been using it, and where i've found it really excels over anything else i've tried. get fable to write a plan, and get something cheaper to follow the plan. the code fable writes isn't significantly better than the code opus writes, as long as they're both following the same plan. but a plan written by fable is much better.

RSZC 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> A very small % of total work.

That seems valid in today's world. Right now it's expensive, slow, and accurate. I imagine in the fairly near future it will be cheap, slow, and accurate, and that'll be a great opportunity to let it run on anything time-insensitive.

Re current use-cases: in addition to planning, there's also some tasks which Opus just can't complete but Fable can. Multiple times I've spent hours in combination w/ Opus trying to debug some particularly nasty nondeterministic issue, only to have Fable nail it in 20mins while I walk the dog.

matheusmoreira 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> what is the use for fable then?

Cybersecurity hardening. The one thing they don't allow the model to do.

solumunus an hour ago | parent [-]

That’s Mythos. Fable isn’t specifically for that I don’t think, just an enhanced ability and persistence of Opus.

4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]