It's much faster, so if you're not doing something cutting-edge, or you're doing the planning yourself and just using the LLM for implementation, the speed benefit outweighs the extra smarts of Fable/Opus5/Sol.

▲

slowin 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I've used all of the models extensively and Grok is only "faster" because it claims to be done minutes after you ask it to do something. It does not produce results anywhere near the Anthropic or OpenAI models, it just hacks a tiny piece of what you ask for and says "I'm done!". I also notice Musk-isms leaking through the model. Multiple times it's told me "this is not a roast" or "I'm not roasting your code". People who use this model because they align with Musk's ideology are doing us all a favor and weeding themselves out of the competition.

▲

rlt 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is there a good way to auto switch between models for planning/implementation?

	▲	phoghed 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Pretty much every coding harness allows you to define skills and agents so yes
	▲	rubyn00bie 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		In most coding harnesses you can just instruct the agent to do so. When using Fable, I often say things like: > Save your context. Always use a subagent (Opus 5 or GPT 5.6) for performing the implementation and then review the work yourself. You are the orchestrator and coordinator it’s up to you to ensure a cohesive final result. I’ve done more or less the same thing with other agents/versions but with Fable consuming usage credits/tokens so quickly I do it more regularly than usual. I know people who will specify Composer (to my chagrin) as the implementing agent. Addendum: this really goes a long way, and I can use a single chat session for days before I get into the context danger zone and need to compact/summarize.
	▲	esafak 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		OpenCode can.

▲

redox99 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah the speed was very nice indeed.