I wish Fable were as good as you make it sound. A plan created by Fable is good, but in my case, it always contain issues caught only when it's reviewed again (whether by itself, Opus, Sol etc.). That's (almost) not different from plans created by Sol, GLM 5.3 etc. The one thing where it's genuinely better is the front-end, but then again it's far from perfect, it just needs less iterations.

▲

dwaltrip 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Fable does far better at considering the whole picture, weighing options, and making suggestions during architecture or refactoring discussions.

It’s more reliable and makes less dumb errors than Opus.

It still messes up, of course. But for my working style, I definitely prefer it.

	▲	mapontosevenths 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Exactly. Use Fable to draft the plan and make decisions. Less capable models to implement the plan. That said, Opus 5 is broken. Use 4.8 or another vendor for the build agent.

▲

enraged_camel 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>> but in my case, it always contain issues caught only when it's reviewed again

Yes but those issues will be much less severe with Fable-written plans than those written by lesser models. I know this because my workflows at both my regular job and my startup involve multi-step agent reviews via codified adversarial review skills. Fable as a reviewer will frequently find blocker-level issues with plans written by GPT 5.6 Sol, and sometimes with Opus 5. The opposite almost never happens. In fact I cannot remember the last time it happened.