Michael @MichAndrWest - Twitter Profile

5 days ago

GPT-5.6 Sol, along with Terra and Luna, will launch publicly this Thursday. We’re expanding preview access globally now.

2K

48K

7K

4K

10M

MichAndrWest retweeted

Anthropic

@AnthropicAI

about 1 month ago

The US government, citing national security authorities, has issued an export control directive to suspend all access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 by any foreign national, whether inside or outside the United States, including foreign national Anthropic employees. The net effect of this order is that we must abruptly disable Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for all our customers to ensure compliance. Access to all other Claude models is not affected. We apologize for this disruption to our customers. We believe this is a misunderstanding and are working to restore access as soon as possible. Read our full statement: https://t.co/bwn0sximKZ

13K

88K

26K

24K

93M

MichAndrWest retweeted

Meta Alchemist

@meta_alchemist

about 1 month ago

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.

meta_alchemist's tweet photo. 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.

180

4K

306

10K

587K

Michael @MichAndrWest

6 months ago

@DMBGorgeCrew I love Buddy, but theres nothing like the sound of a great violin player

0

3

Who to follow

MichAndrWest retweeted

Frank Turek

@DrFrankTurek

6 months ago

The #1 Question to Ask Your Atheist Friends

170

5K

1K

2K

98K

MichAndrWest retweeted

Trad West

@trad_west_

6 months ago

Christ is King

175

27K

4K

3K

274K

Michael @MichAndrWest

7 months ago

@JesusSavesUs777 https://t.co/wFdvZanO5g

Science girl

@sciencegirl

7 months ago

AI reveals what Jesus may have looked liked based on the Turin Shroud

1K

12K

1K

2K

586K

0

2

MichAndrWest retweeted

Christian Tweets

@JesusSavesUs777

7 months ago

Jesus is Lord!

105

8K

791

148

62K

Michael @MichAndrWest

9 months ago

I'd like to cancel my Premium+ auto renewal for a full refund. 100/year to 400/year increase in unacceptable. I submitted a request through help center with no response. Thank you for your attention to this matter. @premium @elonmusk

0

5

MichAndrWest retweeted