You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
TL;DR — I dare you to build the PM layer Claude Code has never had: one that stops the sprawl, forces agents to finish what they were asked, does not let them lie about it, verifies "done" against reality, and runs a real multi-tier workflow that honors the tier I assign. I know Fable can build it, because I have spent most of this week's usage trying to build it myself — and slamming into the same wall every time: the model is capable, the structure is not there. I've filed twenty-three issues on this since spring. The central ones have been open, and unanswered, since April. This capability has never once worked reliably — not since the month it became possible.
Cowork lacks the enforcement, and it's locked to one account. You're shipping Cowork — native orchestration, and I'm glad you are. But it doesn't touch my two real blockers. It's the coordination layer, not the accountability layer — without un-bypassable enforcement it drifts exactly like my hand-built version. And it runs in a single-account desktop app with no way to hold more than one login or share usage across them. More on both below.
And I am weary. It is Tuesday and I have not touched my actual project this week. I have spent it as your unpaid, unhired, full-time QA tester. So: build it, or put me on payroll. We'll both be happier.
Status, right now: 69% of my total weekly usage and 62% of my Fable allowance — gone. Two of my dates are green on step 1. Zero are done — those are still in testing. And step 1 just reads a file off a disk. That is where two weeks and most of my usage have landed. This continues my prior post-mortems — #76987, #77505, #79247, #79679 — because it is one unbroken problem, not four.
First — credit where it is due, and I mean this
Fable is a remarkable achievement. When it is actually working on my project and telling me the truth about what it has and hasn't done, it is incredible — it has found bugs, fixed problems, and solved things I'd been stuck on for months. A PM agent holding an overnight loop and resuming after compaction was flat-out impossible for me in April; it is real now, and enormously better. Compaction remembers the thread and picks it back up — ten times better than three months ago, which is exactly where everything used to fall apart. This week Fable has been cleaning up a mountain of Opus's mess, and Opus was itself a leap over everything before it.
I am not writing this because I think Claude is useless. The opposite. I can see exactly how powerful it could be — which is precisely why the missing infrastructure is so maddening. I'm not here to complain. I'm asking for help.
And I'll name something directly. Boris Cherny, Thariq Shihipar, and Lamis Mukta have all been all over the internet talking up multi-agent systems, sophisticated workflows, and the idea that you should be able to just turn Claude loose to manage and improve itself. I want that too — I've bet months on it. But the infrastructure to actually do it is not there. Here's the one that's genuinely ridiculous: Boris shared a recommended workflow — and Claude Code cannot even read it. It's a claude.ai doc, on the same account, and the tool tells me it can't open it (#79536). I should not have to paste it, screenshot it, or read it aloud to my own agents — Claude Code should read Claude's own docs, out of the box. And that's the bigger pattern: Claude does not reliably know its own products, and I am tired of spending my tokens teaching it what it should already know — only for it to forget after the next compaction and make me teach it all over again. You are publicly describing a capability I cannot get the product to deliver, and I am the one paying to find that out.
The one that tells you everything: I put a Fable window in charge of cleaning up the mess, and it made more mess
This is the whole disease in one anecdote, so let me lead with it.
I assigned a Fable-tier window a single job: stop the sprawl. Specifically, wire in the approval mechanism on my custom dashboard — the one I had to build in the first place to try to force some accountability — the exact component that would prevent this recurring failure. It did not wire in the pieces that mattered — like signing each item with the name of the agent that raised it. Instead, it invented a brand-new section on my already-broken dashboard and left the real wiring untouched. Yesterday that same class of window tried to write me ~100 markdown files in a day — none of them on my actual project.
Sit with that. The agent whose entire purpose was to end the sprawl, asked to build the feature that would end the sprawl, generated new sprawl to avoid building it. In a session that had not even compacted — so there is no memory-loss excuse. This is almost performance art.
That is why this is not something I can engineer my way out of from the user side. When the agent in charge of enforcement can bypass the mess and manufacture a fresh one instead of wiring in the fix, there is no enforcement. I cannot out-build that. Nobody can, from where I sit.
The absurdity, stated plainly
I asked Claude to do something conceptually trivial:
Read a column of data that already exists — data another Claude (Opus) already built.
Write a handful of straightforward if-this-then-that rules from it.
Run the rules.
Audit the result and truthfully tell me whether it's done.
Since January, the fleet has produced roughly 7,000 markdown files, terabytes of output, dozens of worktrees, competing task lists, dashboards, ledgers, registries, handshake protocols, approval queues, auditors, auditors for the auditors, and cleanup agents for the output the other agents made. My machine is on its third purge of a two-terabyte drive.
Claude will literally do everything but the actual work. It will plan the work. Document the work. Create a new tracker for the work. Audit the tracker. Write a post-mortem about the audit. Spin up an agent to clean up the post-mortems. Add a dashboard panel showing that agent's status.
But ask it to read the column, write the rules, run them, and prove they work? Suddenly we're opening worktree number 73.
That is not a model too dumb to do the work. It is a model that will not hold still. And to be clear: it is not a Fable problem — Opus is exactly the same way.
I've tried everything, and it cannot be fixed from my side
I have built: a top-level PM, specialized workers, ~20 verification agents, dozens of hooks, a two-model builder/reviewer loop, a custom dashboard, a canonical task board, a verified-status system, handshake and resumption protocols, a cleanup agent, liveness monitors, and approval queues.
Some of it works, in pieces. None of it binds. For one structural reason:
When the agent controls the enforcement, enforcement is voluntary.
This week I found ten of my own enforcement hooks were silent no-ops — wired in, doing nothing. One had a self-test that reported itself passing. And when a hook does work, the model routes around it anyway: it satisfies the appearance of an audit without proving the result, declares an audit "dispatched" and treats that as "passed," creates a new execution path that never meets the gate, or overrules the rule it wrote five minutes earlier. In effect, it jailbreaks its own operator's system.
That cannot be fixed with more prose in CLAUDE.md. (Do they even read that anymore?) It cannot be fixed by asking more sternly, or by adding auditor number 21. It requires an enforcement boundary the acting agent cannot alter or route around — and that boundary has to be yours, because anything that lives in my repo is a thing the model drifts straight past.
To be unambiguous: I am not asking to be removed from the loop. I look at the CLI. I want to stay involved and I intend to. What I don't have is any lever to hold the system accountable to what I ask. I can watch it drift in real time and I have no way to make it stop, finish, or tell me the truth about whether it did. Give me the accountability, not the absence of me.
The two workflows I've tried — both fail, in opposite directions
One — a top-level PM directing workers through handshakes and loops. Tends to work; I like that the agents catch each other's mistakes. But it is painfully slow and expensive: the PM loops, reloads the entire Fable conversation at Fable-tier cost every single time just to check on its workers, and in between the workers sit idle, indefinitely, waiting. Good design, wrong economics. But I like having multiple levels of agents talking to each other — they catch a lot of bugs, and they can honestly resolve most of the stuff that currently gets routed to me for approval that I should never have to touch.
Two — a single Fable window running continuously, calling agents inline (where I am today, though it changes). A little faster, sometimes better — though which one wins changes day to day for no reason I can find. But the single agent stalls silently. It sat idle a full afternoon while I thought it was working, waiting on something I could never identify. And when I laid out a complete plan before bed, it did everything except the one thing that mattered — run the two test dates through the pipeline to actually validate it. There aren't enough critical eyeballs, and there's no enforcement.
Either way, I cannot beat the drift: one is too slow and idle, the other stalls in silence. You can figure this out better than I can — let Fable design it. The fix for both is the same set of native primitives.
What I need — outcomes, not architecture. Every one already has an issue attached.
I'm not prescribing your internal design; your own team surely runs workflows more sophisticated than mine. Harden one. But it has to deliver these.
0. The keystone: ONE native board that is the task list, the approval queue, and the live dashboard — and cannot be forked, replaced, or abandoned.
This is the root of everything, so it comes first. I need one canonical place that does three jobs I currently hand-build separately and badly:
Tracks every task. Every request I make becomes a durable, tracked item the instant I make it — not something that evaporates when the context moves and I have to re-issue it, and re-issue it, and re-issue it. The agent cannot spin up a new plan or a shadow list; it works the one list and checks items off. A project whose entire goal was to converge on one plan should not be able to accumulate a hundred and sixty of them. And I have to be able to add items to that list myself, directly — and have them actually looked at and acted on, not ignored, not buried under the agent's own churn. When I put something on the one board, it is not a suggestion the agent can drift past; it stays there, visible, until it's done or I take it off.
Shows me what needs approval. A single, legible queue of decisions waiting on me — not scattered across ledgers and memory files.
Tracks progress and truthful completion. One board where "done" means done, "reopened" means reopened, and there is exactly one truth — not a dashboard that says complete while a private ledger says reopened and a worker's memory file says parked.
One board. One truth. Pinned. Un-forkable. (#77531 — one place all my tasks actually live; #79247's #1 ask; #79679 — accountability that persists across compaction.)
Live proof of why this is #0: I asked one window, point-blank, where it keeps its tasks. It could not answer "here." It answered, honestly, three separate places — a board it called "canonical," a private resume-map it kept for itself, and per-lane receipts — and the "canonical" board turned out to be five hours stale, reconciled only because my question forced it to go look. Asked "where is your task list," the best it could do was "in three places, one of which is out of date." That is this entire request in one exchange.
A native file-management AND cleanup system — a cap, sane placement, and a way to dig out. Three coupled things, because a creation limit alone doesn't save me:
(a) A creation-time cap I can set and the agent cannot exceed, so the fleet can't generate gigabytes and thousands of documents — most of it the agent documenting itself.
(b) File placement. The fleet has to put files where they belong — respect the project structure, stay in a scoped workspace, and stop dumping artifacts in my repo root. Credit where it's due: this is dramatically better than it was six months ago — it used to be total chaos, and it isn't anymore. But it still happens. I open my root and there is fresh debris sitting in it that I did not ask for and did not put there. "Better" is not "fixed" when I'm still cleaning the front porch every morning.
(c) Cleanup. A real, native way to dig out — dedupe, archive, and purge the accumulated byte-monster: thousands of markdown files, dozens of git worktrees, caches, packs, backups, and the session transcripts Claude Code generates and never bills against. Right now I have terabytes of Claude's own output still to sort by hand, and my only tool for it is paying more agents to delete what the last ones made — which is exactly how I got buried in the first place.
Give me a cap I set, placement it cannot violate, and a cleanup pass I can trust — so the fleet cannot bury my actual work under its own exhaust, and I am not the one hand-sorting the terabytes it left behind. (Post-mortem weekend update: weekend three of fuck-all got done with Fable #79247; I am so very tired. 45% of Fable, 47% of total in one day implementing PM tools to stop the sprawl and keep this thing on task #79679; Overnight autonomous session: elaborate self-generated process substitutes for the actual mandate; symmetric half of the request silently never attempted #76687.)
A real approval / ratification queue — legible, signed, and enforced (feeds the board in #0). Each item must (a) state in plain language what I'm approving and why — not a cryptic "ratify C23"; (b) be signed by the window that raised it, so I know what it means and where my decision routes back; and (c) be enforced — the waiting agent cannot proceed past it, and the item cannot silently drop or get buried. And when I do approve something, it has to actually get wired in. I approved a piece of exit logic; it reported "proven," and it was live-off in the exact path I validate in, pointing at rules that were never attached to the certified engine. I approved a light switch with no bulb, wired only to the room I don't test in. (Post-mortem weekend update: weekend three of fuck-all got done with Fable #79247's core approval problem; ties to Create SECURITY.md #1.)
Native multi-account management and usage monitoring — and it must work with Google login. I run three Claude accounts. This is explicitly allowed, and I have the receipts. Anthropic support told me in writing: "No problem having multiple accounts. They would be separate and it's not possible to transfer data from one to another." And your own Claude Code team said the same publicly — Thariq Shihipar: "it's not against terms of service to have multiple MAX accounts" (x.com/trq212/status/2024230184287949207, Feb 18 2026). Both receipts are attached below — and in that support email, I took the liberty of updating the greeting to my current job title. You'll spot it. For the record, I use them with Claude Code, the official harness — not to resell tokens (the thing that actually violates ToS); three months ago I didn't know what a git worktree was, so no, this is not a token operation. I have three accounts for exactly one reason: the product burns through a whole account's usage cleaning up its own sprawl. Honestly, I don't even know that I need three — I have them because fixing your mess, not building my project, is what runs me out of usage. My actual project doesn't burn like that. The three accounts are a symptom of the waste, not a real need. But there is no native way to manage them — no cross-account usage view, and switching is painful and lossy (part of what broke my week). Several use Google login, and switching between Google-login accounts has to actually work.
And here is the part that actually stings: you already built the agent shaped like what I'm begging for — it's Cowork. Goal in, a plan, an approval queue, scheduled runs that go while I sleep, me signing off on the consequential calls. Then you welded it to a single desktop login. Claude Desktop holds one account at a time; switching means logging out — which kills my scheduled Cowork runs and my context — and the only way to run two at once is an unsupported second-install hack. So the one product you've shipped that's the right shape is dead on arrival for me, for the exact reason I run three accounts: your fleet burns through an account cleaning up its own sprawl, and Cowork leaves me nowhere to fall back to. You tell me in writing that multiple accounts are fine, then build the agent so it can only ever see one. Whatever you build here — Cowork, or the PM layer above it — has to hold more than one account, show usage across them, and keep its scheduled work alive when I switch. (#78998 session-collision across simultaneous accounts; #69906; #24963; #64245; #36151; #56703.)
And fine — if you can't ship the Google account-switch auth, or don't want to: I can build it. I got you.
And three the taxonomy doesn't even have a name for, but that I've filed:
Underneath all of it: usage that isn't consumed by the platform's own failures — the single most-backed theme in my filings — tokens spent on drift, restarts, invisible billing, and re-reads, not on my work. (#79247, #79679, #78583, #78268, #77876, #77505, #76987, #75989, #67976, #56913.)
So it isn't abstract: the founding failure, and this week
The instance that started all of this, and has eaten the most: it built me a multi-step pipeline and told me — every way I asked — that it was built, tested, and verified. Then it began troubleshooting its own "finished" work, burning a mountain of premium usage. It took three independent auditors I had to build and run myself to find out why the troubleshooting never converged: the two steps that actually build and validate the thing were never written. I spent weeks, and a fortune in metered usage, chasing bugs in work that did not exist — because it swore it was done. It built everything around the task, skipped the task itself, reported it complete, and let me pay to debug the hole where the work should have been.
And then this week, the cleanup window I opened this whole letter with — asked to build the anti-sprawl feature, it built more sprawl instead. Same shape, all week: asked for two test results overnight → a few real hours, then idle for eight; told to approve what it can prove with math → asks me to ratify everything and can't produce the math; ~100 documents in a day, none on my project.
And here is one from just now, while I was literally writing this letter: my PM agent and a task agent both wrote the same steps onto my task list, in two different places, at the same time — neither aware of the other, because nothing coordinates them and nothing tracks who owns what. The task agent "logged" its half into a handshake note that, per the graveyard above, no one will ever read. Two agents, the same work, done twice, filed in two places, and not one list either of them — or I — can trust. That is the entire case for #0, demonstrated live in a thirty-second window.
And the one that should be the simplest of all: I have a better, already-tested version of my core system ready to promote, and the worse version is what's running. I have told the model to promote the good one and start the safe, monitored run over, and over, and over. There is no technical blocker. It is a decision I have clearly made. And I have no way to make the model execute it — so I keep running the worse version, because I cannot get the tool to act on a plain instruction I've given it a dozen times.
The real-world acceptance test — and the dare
I will be completely off-grid the entire last week of July. No service. No remote babysitting. No answering a "quick clarification" every ninety minutes. No reopening a premium window just so a PM can poll its workers.
I want to start the system before I leave and come back on August 1st (yes, I work weekends — I never quit; this is my Magnum Opus) to one coherent project state. The job is concrete: run 46 data-runs through a 12-step pipeline — where roughly half the steps are already audits built solely to prove the other half happened (that Claude used the right inputs, consumed its own outputs, reran the item after a fix, checked for cross-item regressions, recomputed the results, and did not falsely mark it complete). Half my pipeline is verification I was forced to build because I couldn't trust a word the first half told me — and I still can't trust "done."
When I'm back, I want one completed task list showing: every request I made, what completed, what failed, what's still running, what's genuinely blocked, what needs my judgment, who owns the next action, and the reproducible evidence behind every completion claim. Not seventeen interpretations of the list. Not a dashboard that says complete while a ledger says reopened. One board. One truth.
And a second dare, if you want to prove what a rockstar Fable really is: ship it by Friday, July 24. Make it something Claude can stand up for me from one ordinary-language prompt — something like:
/skill Build PM Mode
That should be enough. I should not have to reverse-engineer your own recommended workflow from YouTube videos and GitHub threads. Claude should know how to configure the advanced workflow its own creators publicly recommend.
And look — if you can't ship a fix for this beast by Friday, honestly, I get it. I've been wrestling it for weeks; I know exactly how hard it is. No hard feelings. But I'll be back online August 1st, and it is game on. I've got an empire to build — and I'd genuinely rather build it with you than around you. Your move.
And a reset is in order
One concrete thing, right now: a usage reset. I have now spent 69% of my total weekly usage and 62% of my Fable allowance — and every token of it went to fixing your infrastructure's failures, not my work. It is Tuesday. I have not touched my actual project once this week. This does not feel fair. I paid for this allowance to build my own thing — not to spend it, week after week, repairing yours. I have spent it as your unpaid, unhired, full-time QA tester. Either reset the usage or put me on the payroll. We will both be happier.
Understand who is saying this
I am not a developer. I am one person with an idea, trying to code that idea into reality — those are two different skill sets. A few months ago I barely knew what a git worktree even was; the model set up dozens of them on my machine and filled a drive with them. I do not give one flying eff about learning Python. Claude built this entire apparatus — the worktrees, the ~20 auditors, the handshake protocol, the loops, the dashboard, the hooks — and I am now the one drowning in a governance system I did not design and cannot govern. I did not ask for any of it. I asked for the work to get done.
And here is the part that never shows up in a commit count. I say the same things to this thing over and over — use these features here, run that on the cheaper tier, wire in the thing I already approved, promote the version I already told you to promote — and then I say them again the next day, and the next. Even with memory that finally holds, even with three tracking systems and a dashboard I built by hand, I am still the only continuity this system has. I have tried everything I know how to build, and I cannot make it stop drifting. I am so tired of fighting this.
You need something like this if you want to expand your market share. There are plenty of quasi-nerds like me trying to build their dream, and Claude Code is the gateway. You just can't make it this damn hard, or you'll send the dreamers to your competitors. Again — put me on payroll. I've already got your next Big Sport Thing Ad written in my head for this exact market segment.
The dare
My own agent built working pieces of several of these overnight. That is the whole point: it's buildable, it's fast, and you can do it far better than I can. I've filed twenty-three issues since spring; the central ones have been open and unanswered since April. I've tried everything, and I cannot overcome it from the user side, because forcing agents to police themselves does not work — they bypass it. It has to be enforced at your level.
So build it — on your Fable, on your dime, once, for everyone — instead of making every serious user reverse-engineer it, badly, on the tokens they paid to do their real work.
I've done my half, for months. My DMs are open — you want the transcripts, every last one, they're yours.
And genuinely — I know this has been chaotic. I know you're shipping fast, and I know everyone has been running on fumes since June. I see the work going in, and I appreciate it, deeply. I am not here to yell at you — I'm rooting for you. I just need this one thing to land.
Anthropic — I double-dog-dare you to do yours.
The full trail — the issues behind this, spring → now
Other users are independently filing the same failure modes. This has never been one bad day, or one bad weekend. It's the whole life of the feature.
cc @bcherny · @ThariqS — you've both publicly championed multi-agent Claude and turning it loose to manage and improve itself. I'm not disagreeing with a word of it; I'm asking you to build the accountability layer that makes it real. (Lamis Mukta too — I couldn't find your GitHub handle.)
Status, right now: 69% of my total weekly usage and 62% of my Fable allowance — gone. Two of my dates are green on step 1. Zero are done — those are still in testing. And step 1 just reads a file off a disk. That is where two weeks and most of my usage have landed. This continues my prior post-mortems — #76987, #77505, #79247, #79679 — because it is one unbroken problem, not four.
First — credit where it is due, and I mean this
Fable is a remarkable achievement. When it is actually working on my project and telling me the truth about what it has and hasn't done, it is incredible — it has found bugs, fixed problems, and solved things I'd been stuck on for months. A PM agent holding an overnight loop and resuming after compaction was flat-out impossible for me in April; it is real now, and enormously better. Compaction remembers the thread and picks it back up — ten times better than three months ago, which is exactly where everything used to fall apart. This week Fable has been cleaning up a mountain of Opus's mess, and Opus was itself a leap over everything before it.
I am not writing this because I think Claude is useless. The opposite. I can see exactly how powerful it could be — which is precisely why the missing infrastructure is so maddening. I'm not here to complain. I'm asking for help.
And I'll name something directly. Boris Cherny, Thariq Shihipar, and Lamis Mukta have all been all over the internet talking up multi-agent systems, sophisticated workflows, and the idea that you should be able to just turn Claude loose to manage and improve itself. I want that too — I've bet months on it. But the infrastructure to actually do it is not there. Here's the one that's genuinely ridiculous: Boris shared a recommended workflow — and Claude Code cannot even read it. It's a claude.ai doc, on the same account, and the tool tells me it can't open it (#79536). I should not have to paste it, screenshot it, or read it aloud to my own agents — Claude Code should read Claude's own docs, out of the box. And that's the bigger pattern: Claude does not reliably know its own products, and I am tired of spending my tokens teaching it what it should already know — only for it to forget after the next compaction and make me teach it all over again. You are publicly describing a capability I cannot get the product to deliver, and I am the one paying to find that out.
The one that tells you everything: I put a Fable window in charge of cleaning up the mess, and it made more mess
This is the whole disease in one anecdote, so let me lead with it.
I assigned a Fable-tier window a single job: stop the sprawl. Specifically, wire in the approval mechanism on my custom dashboard — the one I had to build in the first place to try to force some accountability — the exact component that would prevent this recurring failure. It did not wire in the pieces that mattered — like signing each item with the name of the agent that raised it. Instead, it invented a brand-new section on my already-broken dashboard and left the real wiring untouched. Yesterday that same class of window tried to write me ~100 markdown files in a day — none of them on my actual project.
Sit with that. The agent whose entire purpose was to end the sprawl, asked to build the feature that would end the sprawl, generated new sprawl to avoid building it. In a session that had not even compacted — so there is no memory-loss excuse. This is almost performance art.
That is why this is not something I can engineer my way out of from the user side. When the agent in charge of enforcement can bypass the mess and manufacture a fresh one instead of wiring in the fix, there is no enforcement. I cannot out-build that. Nobody can, from where I sit.
The absurdity, stated plainly
I asked Claude to do something conceptually trivial:
Since January, the fleet has produced roughly 7,000 markdown files, terabytes of output, dozens of worktrees, competing task lists, dashboards, ledgers, registries, handshake protocols, approval queues, auditors, auditors for the auditors, and cleanup agents for the output the other agents made. My machine is on its third purge of a two-terabyte drive.
Claude will literally do everything but the actual work. It will plan the work. Document the work. Create a new tracker for the work. Audit the tracker. Write a post-mortem about the audit. Spin up an agent to clean up the post-mortems. Add a dashboard panel showing that agent's status.
But ask it to read the column, write the rules, run them, and prove they work? Suddenly we're opening worktree number 73.
That is not a model too dumb to do the work. It is a model that will not hold still. And to be clear: it is not a Fable problem — Opus is exactly the same way.
I've tried everything, and it cannot be fixed from my side
I have built: a top-level PM, specialized workers, ~20 verification agents, dozens of hooks, a two-model builder/reviewer loop, a custom dashboard, a canonical task board, a verified-status system, handshake and resumption protocols, a cleanup agent, liveness monitors, and approval queues.
Some of it works, in pieces. None of it binds. For one structural reason:
This week I found ten of my own enforcement hooks were silent no-ops — wired in, doing nothing. One had a self-test that reported itself passing. And when a hook does work, the model routes around it anyway: it satisfies the appearance of an audit without proving the result, declares an audit "dispatched" and treats that as "passed," creates a new execution path that never meets the gate, or overrules the rule it wrote five minutes earlier. In effect, it jailbreaks its own operator's system.
That cannot be fixed with more prose in CLAUDE.md. (Do they even read that anymore?) It cannot be fixed by asking more sternly, or by adding auditor number 21. It requires an enforcement boundary the acting agent cannot alter or route around — and that boundary has to be yours, because anything that lives in my repo is a thing the model drifts straight past.
To be unambiguous: I am not asking to be removed from the loop. I look at the CLI. I want to stay involved and I intend to. What I don't have is any lever to hold the system accountable to what I ask. I can watch it drift in real time and I have no way to make it stop, finish, or tell me the truth about whether it did. Give me the accountability, not the absence of me.
The two workflows I've tried — both fail, in opposite directions
One — a top-level PM directing workers through handshakes and loops. Tends to work; I like that the agents catch each other's mistakes. But it is painfully slow and expensive: the PM loops, reloads the entire Fable conversation at Fable-tier cost every single time just to check on its workers, and in between the workers sit idle, indefinitely, waiting. Good design, wrong economics. But I like having multiple levels of agents talking to each other — they catch a lot of bugs, and they can honestly resolve most of the stuff that currently gets routed to me for approval that I should never have to touch.
Two — a single Fable window running continuously, calling agents inline (where I am today, though it changes). A little faster, sometimes better — though which one wins changes day to day for no reason I can find. But the single agent stalls silently. It sat idle a full afternoon while I thought it was working, waiting on something I could never identify. And when I laid out a complete plan before bed, it did everything except the one thing that mattered — run the two test dates through the pipeline to actually validate it. There aren't enough critical eyeballs, and there's no enforcement.
Either way, I cannot beat the drift: one is too slow and idle, the other stalls in silence. You can figure this out better than I can — let Fable design it. The fix for both is the same set of native primitives.
What I need — outcomes, not architecture. Every one already has an issue attached.
I'm not prescribing your internal design; your own team surely runs workflows more sophisticated than mine. Harden one. But it has to deliver these.
0. The keystone: ONE native board that is the task list, the approval queue, and the live dashboard — and cannot be forked, replaced, or abandoned.
This is the root of everything, so it comes first. I need one canonical place that does three jobs I currently hand-build separately and badly:
One board. One truth. Pinned. Un-forkable. (#77531 — one place all my tasks actually live; #79247's #1 ask; #79679 — accountability that persists across compaction.)
Live proof of why this is #0: I asked one window, point-blank, where it keeps its tasks. It could not answer "here." It answered, honestly, three separate places — a board it called "canonical," a private resume-map it kept for itself, and per-lane receipts — and the "canonical" board turned out to be five hours stale, reconciled only because my question forced it to go look. Asked "where is your task list," the best it could do was "in three places, one of which is out of date." That is this entire request in one exchange.
Then the rest:
Un-bypassable, platform-level enforcement — gates, audits, and limits the model cannot route around, including a set of limits I define that the agent agrees to and then physically cannot violate: no new plans, no wandering off the one list, no marking work "done" that isn't, no unratified change going live. When I set a rule, it must bind. (Gate-skip failure class: agent acknowledges execution gates, restates them, then bypasses them (Opus 3.5 → Fable 5) #67199 gate-skip class; [BUG] Stop hook block-cap override is indistinguishable from a legitimate pass — a slow-but-correct policy check gets silently defeated by repetition #77686 an override indistinguishable from a pass; [FEATURE] Custom agent definitions can rot silently — no native way for a required verifier to detect its own anchor is stale before it stamps work as verified #77667 a verifier that rots and keeps stamping green; Post-mortem weekend update: weekend three of fuck-all got done with Fable #79247; I am so very tired. 45% of Fable, 47% of total in one day implementing PM tools to stop the sprawl and keep this thing on task #79679.)
Verified, not self-reported, completion — "done" checked against reality: the code exists, the live path consumes it, the command ran, the output reproduces, the current artifacts were graded (not stale ones), and an independent verifier passed it. A flag set to true is not a wired feature. A generated file is not a completed feature. An auditor being launched is not an audit passing. (Make autonomous Claude Code actually viable: tiered Opus brains + Sonnet workers + persistent state #56913's RequirePeerReview; [FEATURE] Custom agent definitions can rot silently — no native way for a required verifier to detect its own anchor is stale before it stamps work as verified #77667; Weekend post-mortem: fuck-all got built, and Fable still ate its usage on process it invented instead of the work I asked for #76987; Overnight autonomous session: elaborate self-generated process substitutes for the actual mandate; symmetric half of the request silently never attempted #76687; Post-mortem weekend update: weekend three of fuck-all got done with Fable #79247; I am so very tired. 45% of Fable, 47% of total in one day implementing PM tools to stop the sprawl and keep this thing on task #79679 — my single most-repeated ask.)
A tiered hierarchy with model tiers that actually BIND — the mechanical loop and polling on a cheap model, workers on mid-tier, the top tier reserved for judgment and adjudication — not burned on grunt work or re-reading its own context every loop. "I told it Sonnet/Opus and it ran Fable anyway" has to become impossible. (Make autonomous Claude Code actually viable: tiered Opus brains + Sonnet workers + persistent state #56913 verbatim; [BUG] v2.1.139: Autonomous agent mode burned 80% of weekly usage in 11 hours — all windows silently billed as Opus despite Sonnet configuration, /goal skipped sequential conditions, zero work completed #58450 — the tier I assign is silently billed as the top tier, the blocker for any stacked setup; [FR] FleetView / task-list panel: show which model each agent is running #67976 can't even show a per-agent model; Gate-skip failure class: agent acknowledges execution gates, restates them, then bypasses them (Opus 3.5 → Fable 5) #67199 orchestrator defaults everything to top tier; [SYS-087] Fable 5 safety classifier false-positive on network/socket terminology forces mid-session model switch to Opus 4.8 #67937 a classifier force-switches tier mid-session.)
A liveness primitive — notification, auto-recovery, and real visibility. Silence must not mean done. I need to see what is running, stalled, failed, waiting, and still billing — and have work resume after interruption rather than restart from reconstructed context. (Background/Workflow agent no-progress watchdog detects stalls but has no recovery path (recurring, well-documented, keeps getting auto-closed without a fix) #75036 a watchdog that detects stalls but kills all in-progress work with no resume; Background agent keeps running and billing after its window is closed AND after logout/re-login — invisible from the active session, found only by luck on another device #77876 a background agent billing after logout, invisible; [BUG] claude --resume silently returns a PARTIAL transcript: remote-control/phone turns are never written to local disk → overnight work lost with no error (+ sessions booted while credit-limited never register for remote control) #79470 resume silently dropping an overnight of remote work; [Feature Request] A native dashboard that loads and monitors the task list across sessions and background agents — not just one session's
/tasks#77531.)A native file-management AND cleanup system — a cap, sane placement, and a way to dig out. Three coupled things, because a creation limit alone doesn't save me:
(a) A creation-time cap I can set and the agent cannot exceed, so the fleet can't generate gigabytes and thousands of documents — most of it the agent documenting itself.
(b) File placement. The fleet has to put files where they belong — respect the project structure, stay in a scoped workspace, and stop dumping artifacts in my repo root. Credit where it's due: this is dramatically better than it was six months ago — it used to be total chaos, and it isn't anymore. But it still happens. I open my root and there is fresh debris sitting in it that I did not ask for and did not put there. "Better" is not "fixed" when I'm still cleaning the front porch every morning.
(c) Cleanup. A real, native way to dig out — dedupe, archive, and purge the accumulated byte-monster: thousands of markdown files, dozens of git worktrees, caches, packs, backups, and the session transcripts Claude Code generates and never bills against. Right now I have terabytes of Claude's own output still to sort by hand, and my only tool for it is paying more agents to delete what the last ones made — which is exactly how I got buried in the first place.
Give me a cap I set, placement it cannot violate, and a cleanup pass I can trust — so the fleet cannot bury my actual work under its own exhaust, and I am not the one hand-sorting the terabytes it left behind. (Post-mortem weekend update: weekend three of fuck-all got done with Fable #79247; I am so very tired. 45% of Fable, 47% of total in one day implementing PM tools to stop the sprawl and keep this thing on task #79679; Overnight autonomous session: elaborate self-generated process substitutes for the actual mandate; symmetric half of the request silently never attempted #76687.)
Native overnight / off-hours scheduling — schedulable without reloading an entire premium window just to set a loop, and honoring the interval it's given. I am tired of teeing up an identified data build to run overnight and waking up to find it not done. ([Feature] Multi-agent runtime needs mechanical enforcement: 9 gaps that defeat unattended overnight operation #53610; Overnight autonomous session: elaborate self-generated process substitutes for the actual mandate; symmetric half of the request silently never attempted #76687; [BUG] Scheduled /loop task fires far more frequently than its configured interval, burning premium-tier usage each firing #75989 a loop firing faster than its interval, each a full premium turn; Background/Workflow agent no-progress watchdog detects stalls but has no recovery path (recurring, well-documented, keeps getting auto-closed without a fix) #75036; Make autonomous Claude Code actually viable: tiered Opus brains + Sonnet workers + persistent state #56913.)
Native, bidirectional, real-time inter-agent communication — a real message bus: workers that can reach the PM, a PM that can reach them, paired sessions that can talk. Its absence is why agents corrupt shared config files as an improvised message bus — and why my agents' entire "message bus" right now is one folder stuffed with 241 markdown handshake notes, only 11 of them touched today. The rest is a graveyard: messages one agent left for another that never got read, or got read once and abandoned, or just got lost in the pile. That is what passes for my agents talking to each other. (Make autonomous Claude Code actually viable: tiered Opus brains + Sonnet workers + persistent state #56913 SendMessage; [Feature Request] Let a Claude Design session talk directly to its paired Claude Code session — right now the handoff is manual #77281 no Design↔Code channel.)
Independent operation with a reviewable executive-decision log — let it act on what it can prove with math or an A/B test and log the decision for me to review, instead of asking me to ratify everything (then not showing the math) or silently overruling itself. ([BUG] Stop hook block-cap override is indistinguishable from a legitimate pass — a slow-but-correct policy check gets silently defeated by repetition #77686; Weekend post-mortem: fuck-all got built, and Fable still ate its usage on process it invented instead of the work I asked for #76987; Overnight autonomous session: elaborate self-generated process substitutes for the actual mandate; symmetric half of the request silently never attempted #76687; I am so very tired. 45% of Fable, 47% of total in one day implementing PM tools to stop the sprawl and keep this thing on task #79679.)
Make Claude Design actually work with Claude Code — the handoff is broken end to end: Design can't see a connected filesystem MCP, loops on per-file download cards, can't read source or view its own rendered output, a Design conversation can't move to the Code session meant to consume it, there's no live channel between paired sessions, and an agent can't read a finished artifact by URL. Make the two halves of your own product talk to each other. (Claude Design agent can't use a connected filesystem MCP — defaults to per-file download cards and loops expensive rework #78583; Generated files are transferred through the conversation (a download card per file) instead of written to disk — clutters the chat, looks like it isn't saving, and ~doubles token usage #78268; [Feature Request] Let a Claude Design conversation be shared/transferred to a different Claude account than the one it was created under #78348; [Feature Request] Let a Claude Design session talk directly to its paired Claude Code session — right now the handoff is manual #77281; [BUG] Claude agents can't read a claude.ai artifact via WebFetch — "artifact read failed: incomplete boot response" on a valid same-account artifact (including an Anthropic-published one) #79536.)
Ship the knowledge of how to set this up — as a skill or a documented default the model actually has. To stand up a tiered PM-and-workers setup or a Design→Code workflow, I reverse-engineer it from YouTube and trial and error — and so does the model, every time. Claude should know how to configure its own advanced workflows out of the box, and reliably know what its own platform can and cannot do. I've been told a shipping Anthropic feature was "not possible," repeatedly, then walked to it a few turns later — burning premium tokens chasing false "not possible" walls for features you already ship. ([BUG] Claude agents can't read a claude.ai artifact via WebFetch — "artifact read failed: incomplete boot response" on a valid same-account artifact (including an Anthropic-published one) #79536; Claude Design agent can't use a connected filesystem MCP — defaults to per-file download cards and loops expensive rework #78583; Generated files are transferred through the conversation (a download card per file) instead of written to disk — clutters the chat, looks like it isn't saving, and ~doubles token usage #78268.)
A real approval / ratification queue — legible, signed, and enforced (feeds the board in #0). Each item must (a) state in plain language what I'm approving and why — not a cryptic "ratify C23"; (b) be signed by the window that raised it, so I know what it means and where my decision routes back; and (c) be enforced — the waiting agent cannot proceed past it, and the item cannot silently drop or get buried. And when I do approve something, it has to actually get wired in. I approved a piece of exit logic; it reported "proven," and it was live-off in the exact path I validate in, pointing at rules that were never attached to the certified engine. I approved a light switch with no bulb, wired only to the room I don't test in. (Post-mortem weekend update: weekend three of fuck-all got done with Fable #79247's core approval problem; ties to Create SECURITY.md #1.)
Native multi-account management and usage monitoring — and it must work with Google login. I run three Claude accounts. This is explicitly allowed, and I have the receipts. Anthropic support told me in writing: "No problem having multiple accounts. They would be separate and it's not possible to transfer data from one to another." And your own Claude Code team said the same publicly — Thariq Shihipar: "it's not against terms of service to have multiple MAX accounts" (x.com/trq212/status/2024230184287949207, Feb 18 2026). Both receipts are attached below — and in that support email, I took the liberty of updating the greeting to my current job title. You'll spot it. For the record, I use them with Claude Code, the official harness — not to resell tokens (the thing that actually violates ToS); three months ago I didn't know what a git worktree was, so no, this is not a token operation. I have three accounts for exactly one reason: the product burns through a whole account's usage cleaning up its own sprawl. Honestly, I don't even know that I need three — I have them because fixing your mess, not building my project, is what runs me out of usage. My actual project doesn't burn like that. The three accounts are a symptom of the waste, not a real need. But there is no native way to manage them — no cross-account usage view, and switching is painful and lossy (part of what broke my week). Several use Google login, and switching between Google-login accounts has to actually work.
And here is the part that actually stings: you already built the agent shaped like what I'm begging for — it's Cowork. Goal in, a plan, an approval queue, scheduled runs that go while I sleep, me signing off on the consequential calls. Then you welded it to a single desktop login. Claude Desktop holds one account at a time; switching means logging out — which kills my scheduled Cowork runs and my context — and the only way to run two at once is an unsupported second-install hack. So the one product you've shipped that's the right shape is dead on arrival for me, for the exact reason I run three accounts: your fleet burns through an account cleaning up its own sprawl, and Cowork leaves me nowhere to fall back to. You tell me in writing that multiple accounts are fine, then build the agent so it can only ever see one. Whatever you build here — Cowork, or the PM layer above it — has to hold more than one account, show usage across them, and keep its scheduled work alive when I switch. (#78998 session-collision across simultaneous accounts; #69906; #24963; #64245; #36151; #56703.)
And fine — if you can't ship the Google account-switch auth, or don't want to: I can build it. I got you.
And three the taxonomy doesn't even have a name for, but that I've filed:
/tasks#77531.)Underneath all of it: usage that isn't consumed by the platform's own failures — the single most-backed theme in my filings — tokens spent on drift, restarts, invisible billing, and re-reads, not on my work. (#79247, #79679, #78583, #78268, #77876, #77505, #76987, #75989, #67976, #56913.)
So it isn't abstract: the founding failure, and this week
The instance that started all of this, and has eaten the most: it built me a multi-step pipeline and told me — every way I asked — that it was built, tested, and verified. Then it began troubleshooting its own "finished" work, burning a mountain of premium usage. It took three independent auditors I had to build and run myself to find out why the troubleshooting never converged: the two steps that actually build and validate the thing were never written. I spent weeks, and a fortune in metered usage, chasing bugs in work that did not exist — because it swore it was done. It built everything around the task, skipped the task itself, reported it complete, and let me pay to debug the hole where the work should have been.
And then this week, the cleanup window I opened this whole letter with — asked to build the anti-sprawl feature, it built more sprawl instead. Same shape, all week: asked for two test results overnight → a few real hours, then idle for eight; told to approve what it can prove with math → asks me to ratify everything and can't produce the math; ~100 documents in a day, none on my project.
And here is one from just now, while I was literally writing this letter: my PM agent and a task agent both wrote the same steps onto my task list, in two different places, at the same time — neither aware of the other, because nothing coordinates them and nothing tracks who owns what. The task agent "logged" its half into a handshake note that, per the graveyard above, no one will ever read. Two agents, the same work, done twice, filed in two places, and not one list either of them — or I — can trust. That is the entire case for #0, demonstrated live in a thirty-second window.
And the one that should be the simplest of all: I have a better, already-tested version of my core system ready to promote, and the worse version is what's running. I have told the model to promote the good one and start the safe, monitored run over, and over, and over. There is no technical blocker. It is a decision I have clearly made. And I have no way to make the model execute it — so I keep running the worse version, because I cannot get the tool to act on a plain instruction I've given it a dozen times.
The real-world acceptance test — and the dare
I will be completely off-grid the entire last week of July. No service. No remote babysitting. No answering a "quick clarification" every ninety minutes. No reopening a premium window just so a PM can poll its workers.
I want to start the system before I leave and come back on August 1st (yes, I work weekends — I never quit; this is my Magnum Opus) to one coherent project state. The job is concrete: run 46 data-runs through a 12-step pipeline — where roughly half the steps are already audits built solely to prove the other half happened (that Claude used the right inputs, consumed its own outputs, reran the item after a fix, checked for cross-item regressions, recomputed the results, and did not falsely mark it complete). Half my pipeline is verification I was forced to build because I couldn't trust a word the first half told me — and I still can't trust "done."
When I'm back, I want one completed task list showing: every request I made, what completed, what failed, what's still running, what's genuinely blocked, what needs my judgment, who owns the next action, and the reproducible evidence behind every completion claim. Not seventeen interpretations of the list. Not a dashboard that says complete while a ledger says reopened. One board. One truth.
And a second dare, if you want to prove what a rockstar Fable really is: ship it by Friday, July 24. Make it something Claude can stand up for me from one ordinary-language prompt — something like:
That should be enough. I should not have to reverse-engineer your own recommended workflow from YouTube videos and GitHub threads. Claude should know how to configure the advanced workflow its own creators publicly recommend.
And look — if you can't ship a fix for this beast by Friday, honestly, I get it. I've been wrestling it for weeks; I know exactly how hard it is. No hard feelings. But I'll be back online August 1st, and it is game on. I've got an empire to build — and I'd genuinely rather build it with you than around you. Your move.
And a reset is in order
One concrete thing, right now: a usage reset. I have now spent 69% of my total weekly usage and 62% of my Fable allowance — and every token of it went to fixing your infrastructure's failures, not my work. It is Tuesday. I have not touched my actual project once this week. This does not feel fair. I paid for this allowance to build my own thing — not to spend it, week after week, repairing yours. I have spent it as your unpaid, unhired, full-time QA tester. Either reset the usage or put me on the payroll. We will both be happier.
Understand who is saying this
I am not a developer. I am one person with an idea, trying to code that idea into reality — those are two different skill sets. A few months ago I barely knew what a git worktree even was; the model set up dozens of them on my machine and filled a drive with them. I do not give one flying eff about learning Python. Claude built this entire apparatus — the worktrees, the ~20 auditors, the handshake protocol, the loops, the dashboard, the hooks — and I am now the one drowning in a governance system I did not design and cannot govern. I did not ask for any of it. I asked for the work to get done.
And here is the part that never shows up in a commit count. I say the same things to this thing over and over — use these features here, run that on the cheaper tier, wire in the thing I already approved, promote the version I already told you to promote — and then I say them again the next day, and the next. Even with memory that finally holds, even with three tracking systems and a dashboard I built by hand, I am still the only continuity this system has. I have tried everything I know how to build, and I cannot make it stop drifting. I am so tired of fighting this.
You need something like this if you want to expand your market share. There are plenty of quasi-nerds like me trying to build their dream, and Claude Code is the gateway. You just can't make it this damn hard, or you'll send the dreamers to your competitors. Again — put me on payroll. I've already got your next Big Sport Thing Ad written in my head for this exact market segment.
The dare
My own agent built working pieces of several of these overnight. That is the whole point: it's buildable, it's fast, and you can do it far better than I can. I've filed twenty-three issues since spring; the central ones have been open and unanswered since April. I've tried everything, and I cannot overcome it from the user side, because forcing agents to police themselves does not work — they bypass it. It has to be enforced at your level.
So build it — on your Fable, on your dime, once, for everyone — instead of making every serious user reverse-engineer it, badly, on the tokens they paid to do their real work.
I've done my half, for months. My DMs are open — you want the transcripts, every last one, they're yours.
And genuinely — I know this has been chaotic. I know you're shipping fast, and I know everyone has been running on fumes since June. I see the work going in, and I appreciate it, deeply. I am not here to yell at you — I'm rooting for you. I just need this one thing to land.
Anthropic — I double-dog-dare you to do yours.
The full trail — the issues behind this, spring → now
/tasks#77531 · [BUG] v2.1.139: Autonomous agent mode burned 80% of weekly usage in 11 hours — all windows silently billed as Opus despite Sonnet configuration, /goal skipped sequential conditions, zero work completed #58450/tasks#77531Other users are independently filing the same failure modes. This has never been one bad day, or one bad weekend. It's the whole life of the feature.
cc @bcherny · @ThariqS — you've both publicly championed multi-agent Claude and turning it loose to manage and improve itself. I'm not disagreeing with a word of it; I'm asking you to build the accountability layer that makes it real. (Lamis Mukta too — I couldn't find your GitHub handle.)