Comment by ammar_x
1 hour ago
You can use V4 Pro with Claude Code [1].
I tried it and it's impressive.
[1]: https://api-docs.deepseek.com/quick_start/agent_integrations...
1 hour ago
You can use V4 Pro with Claude Code [1].
I tried it and it's impressive.
[1]: https://api-docs.deepseek.com/quick_start/agent_integrations...
I am curious - Is there a way to switch between models depending on the task? Because I believe Deepseek V4 is not multimodal and it will be good to switch back to Claude if vision or other capabilities are required.
That's interesting. I thought Claude Code is not as good, therefore people want to use Claude model with other alternatives. This is the other way around.
Which begs the question, regardless of the model, which Claude Code alternative is better? (I keep saying "Claude Code alternative" because I don't know the term... LLM CLI?)
The common term for a tool that wraps an LLM with a workflow is “harness”.
Surprised Anthropic hasn't done anything to restrict Claude Code from using other providers.
The value of Claude Code the harness isn't that great. There's a lot of other good harnesses out there.
I thought so, and then I tried Opencode and Codex and started to appreciate Claude Code a lot more. They've actually done great work the small details.
What’s your favourite harness? Is there any benchmarks for harness like LLMs have for swe verified?
Good or better? Curious which would be in either bucket.
1 reply →
And it gets dragged down by Anthropic actively injecting unhelpful things into prompts without telling users about them (https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/58262).
At this point in the AI wars, it is probably better to have more users of Claude code rather than restrict which LLMs it can connect to. Claude code is probably (currently at least) stickier than the LLM model itself. Getting people into the Claude code ecosystem is worth it.
Later, they can always lock it down more or add Claude LLM only features to it.