← Back to context

Comment by hombre_fatal

5 days ago

My job these days is listening to Opus 4.8 (max effort) and Codex 5.5 (max effort) talk back and forth, particularly to generate/review/revise plan files.

Fable 5 has been a major improvement in high-level reasoning, like taking a plan file that has been optimized to the point where neither Opus nor Codex can find anything to change about it (neither in direction nor impl-detail), and Fable 5 will find high-level directional simplifications and pivots, or it will consider the best pivots itself and explain why it rejected them in favor of the plan's direction.

It's so expensive though. A single review of a plan file with Fable 5 (xhigh effort) will use 2-3% of my hourly limit on a $200/mo plan.

I think my new workflow is to generate the initial plan with Opus 4.8 (max effort), get Fable 5 (xhigh) to review it for directional feedback, then start the Opus<->Codex revision loop from there.

How do you arrive at that split? Real world is more like senior high level planning, implementation to juniors, review senior. Does this not translate?

  • Ideally I'd have Fable 5 make the plan, but creating a concrete plan is the most token-expensive part since the agent has to do the most research.

    Fable 5 is 2x the cost per token of Opus 4.8, and it's much less work to review a plan than generate one.