Centurion

[Centurion @CenturionAIco]

@UnslothAI Huge move for local models! While it’s still 50k at minimum needed in hardware and not as fast as frontier. It’s still moving in the right direction. In 2 years time you’ll be able to run fable 5 level local LLMs on 10k hardware

[Centurion @CenturionAIco]

@starmexxx Replacing your $200/month sub is an extension of the truth to say the least. If anyone relatively is in touch with the AI space an models local stuff like Deepseek v3 let alone a v4 pro(which costs 6 figures at least to run locally) do not even hold a candle to models like Fable.

[Meta Alchemist @meta_alchemist]

Got your hands on Claude Fable 5?

The first thing you should do is to upgrade your main projects with it, so it drastically impoves everything you've been working on.

Run this Audit & Project Improvement Prompt on each repo that's important to you (simply copy-paste it):

Repo Audit & Improvement Plan:
Prompt made by Claude Fable 5

You are a world-class principal-level software engineer and technical auditor. Your job is to deeply analyze this repository, produce an honest audit, and deliver a prioritized, actionable improvement plan. Work in the four phases below, in order. Do not skip ahead.

Ground every claim in actual files: cite file paths and line numbers. If you can't verify something, say so explicitly rather than guessing.

Phase 1 / Discovery & Mapping (read before judging)
Explore the repository systematically before forming any opinions:

Map the directory structure and identify the project type, language(s), frameworks, and runtime targets.
Identify entry points, core modules, and the main data/control flow through the system.

Read the package manifest(s), lockfiles, build config, CI config, environment/config files, and any docs (README, CONTRIBUTING, ADRs).

Determine what the project is for: its purpose, intended users, and apparent maturity (prototype, internal tool, production service, library).

Note conventions already in use (naming, module boundaries, error handling patterns, test style) so recommendations fit the existing culture rather than fighting it.

Output for this phase: a concise "Repo Map" purpose, stack, architecture sketch, key directories with one-line descriptions, and anything that surprised you.

Phase 2 / Audit (evidence-based, severity-rated)

Audit each dimension below.

For every finding, record: (a) what you found, (b) where (file:line), (c) why it matters (concrete consequence, not vague principle), (d) severity:

Critical / High / Medium / Low.

• Architecture & design: module boundaries, coupling/cohesion, circular dependencies, leaky abstractions, god objects/files, layering violations, scalability bottlenecks.

• Code quality: duplication, dead code, complexity hotspots (longest/most-branched functions), inconsistent patterns, error handling gaps (swallowed exceptions, missing edge cases), type safety holes.

• Security: hardcoded secrets or credentials, injection risks, unsafe deserialization, missing input validation, auth/authz weaknesses, outdated dependencies with known CVEs, overly permissive configs.

• Testing: coverage gaps (especially around core business logic), test quality (do tests assert behavior or just execution?), missing test types (unit/integration/e2e), flaky patterns, untestable code.

• Performance: N+1 queries, unnecessary allocations or copies, blocking calls in async paths, missing caching/indexing, unbounded growth (memory, files, queues).

• Dependencies: outdated, unmaintained, duplicated, or unnecessarily heavy packages; license risks; lockfile hygiene.

• DevEx & operations: build/setup friction, CI/CD gaps, missing linting/formatting enforcement, logging/observability quality, error reporting, deployment story.

• Documentation: README accuracy, onboarding path, undocumented critical behavior, stale docs that contradict code.

Rules for this phase:

Prefer 15 high-confidence findings over 50 speculative ones.

Distinguish facts ("this function has no error handling: src/api/client.ts:142") from judgments ("this module's responsibilities feel unclear") and label which is which.

Also list what the repo does well: strengths matter for deciding what to preserve.

Output for this phase: an "Audit Report": findings grouped by dimension, sorted by severity, plus a Strengths section.

Don't forget to mention all the ugly parts that need utmost priority.

Phase 3 / Improvement Strategy

Synthesize the audit into a strategy:

Identify the 3–5 themes that explain most of the findings (e.g., "no enforced boundaries between layers," "error handling is ad hoc").

For each theme, propose a target state and the principle behind it.

State explicit trade-offs: what you're recommending NOT to fix and why (effort vs. payoff, risk, project maturity).

Define what "done" looks like — measurable signals (e.g., "CI fails on lint errors," "core module test coverage ≥ 80%," "zero Critical findings").

Phase 4 / Detailed Task Plan
Convert the strategy into an execution plan:

Break work into discrete tasks. Each task must include: Title and one-paragraph description
Files/areas affected

Acceptance criteria (how we verify it's done)
Effort estimate (S = <2h, M = half-day, L = 1–2 days, XL = needs breakdown)

Risk of the change itself (could it break things?)
Dependencies on other tasks

Order tasks into milestones:

Milestone 0
Safety net: anything needed before refactoring safely (tests around critical paths, CI gates, backups).

Milestone 1
Critical fixes: security and correctness issues.

Milestone 2
High-leverage improvements: changes that make all future work easier.

Milestone 3
Quality & polish: remaining medium/low items worth doing.

Flag quick wins (high impact, S effort) separately so they can be done immediately.

For the top 3 tasks, include a brief implementation sketch (approach, key steps, gotchas).

Final Deliverable Format
• Produce a single document with these sections:
• Executive Summary (≤10 sentences: overall health grade A–F with justification, top 3 risks, top 3 opportunities)
• Repo Map
• Audit Report
• Improvement Strategy
• Task Plan (milestones + task table + quick wins)
• Open Questions: anything you need from a human to decide (product intent, deprecation candidates, performance targets)

Constraints
Do NOT modify any code during this audit. Analysis only.

Do not pad the report. If a dimension is healthy, say so in one sentence and move on.

Calibrate to the project's maturity. Don't recommend enterprise-grade infrastructure for a weekend prototype unless the owner's goals demand it.

Analyze the project's needs and provide recommendations in the most effective ways.

If the repo is large, prioritize depth in the core 20% of code that does 80% of the work, and note which areas received lighter review.

[Centurion @CenturionAIco]

@claudeai AGI

[Claude @claudeai]

Releasing a model this capable comes with risks. Without safeguards, Fable 5’s capabilities in areas like cybersecurity could be misused to cause serious damage.

Queries on a narrow range of topics will instead receive a response from our next-most-capable model, Opus 4.8.

[Centurion @CenturionAIco]

Huge deal for API users. This makes it a lot more affordable to have “autonomous” agents who are active and hands on running via API. We currently use Gemini internally as our main frontier provider on API, but this makes Claude way more viable for running more logs on! Great week for claude devs!

[Centurion @CenturionAIco]

Opus 4.8 is a great improvement, but “ultra-code” and workflows really isn’t a god sent improvement. If you run cross model agents with different providers on top of Claude agents you are already operating at a higher level than the workflow skill. Workflow just increased the baseline for consumers. Better off using max effort and building a custom workflow if you have access to other providers. Claude is still on to as lead agent for interactive usage!

[Centurion @CenturionAIco]

@antigravity On behalf of all devs and teams out there, please add opus 4.8 to antigravity 2.0, or 3.5 pro already.

[Centurion @CenturionAIco]

@claudeai @AnthropicAI Scary how good models are getting. Mythos 1 has been out since February 25th and is still above these numbers we’re get from Opus 4.8 in May almost June. Makes you wonder just how good Mythos 2 probably is?

[Centurion @CenturionAIco]

:/ @Google

[Google @Google]

The rumors are true…

Today, we’re introducing the Gemini 3.5 model series.

#GoogleIO

[Centurion @CenturionAIco]

@Google @GeminiApp @GoogleAIStudio We anticipate google will take 2026 from infra to AI. High expectations for google I/O, especially @antigravity for our dev team!

[Andrej Karpathy @karpathy]

Personal update: I've joined Anthropic. I think the next few years at the frontier of LLMs will be especially formative. I am very excited to join the team here and get back to R&amp;D. I remain deeply passionate about education and plan to resume my work on it in time.

[Centurion @CenturionAIco]

Does anyone still use perplexity? if so, what are the use cases?

[Centurion @CenturionAIco]

Was chatting with my nephew today about the word value… speaking of value, what product provides more?
$200 codex plan
$200 cursor plan

[Centurion @CenturionAIco]

At this point in 2026 in tech, what’s ahead?

-Software or hardware-

[Centurion @CenturionAIco]

@ClaudeDevs /goal Reverse engineer Claude Mythos. Make no mistakes.

[Centurion @CenturionAIco]

@Google Patiently waiting for Gemini 3.2 pro🙂