undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbojo28d ago0 comments

Perhaps? I just used it to analyze one of my 96k Zig codebases using Claude Code and here is (part of) what came back. (I snipped out the deeper analysis above as it exposes my private project - but it was all correct).

  Head-to-Head

  ┌──────────────┬─────────┬─────────────┬────────────┐
  │    Metric    │  Opty   │ Traditional │   Ratio    │
  ├──────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┼────────────┤
  │ Input tokens │ ~13,500 │ ~39,408     │ 2.9x fewer │
  ├──────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┼────────────┤
  │ Tool calls   │ 21      │ 61          │ 2.9x fewer │
  ├──────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┼────────────┤
  │ Round trips  │ 5       │ 9           │ 1.8x fewer │
  └──────────────┴─────────┴─────────────┴────────────┘

I had it run a separate analysis using traditional vs. opty and count the actual tool calls and input token counts. My prompt was basically, "do a full analysis of this entire codebase."

0 comments

verdverm28d ago

you're focused on quantity, that's yesterday's problem, tokens are getting cheaper, contexts are getting longer

try quality instead

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsbojo28d ago0 comments

  Head-to-Head

  ┌──────────────┬─────────┬─────────────┬────────────┐
  │    Metric    │  Opty   │ Traditional │   Ratio    │
  ├──────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┼────────────┤
  │ Input tokens │ ~13,500 │ ~39,408     │ 2.9x fewer │
  ├──────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┼────────────┤
  │ Tool calls   │ 21      │ 61          │ 2.9x fewer │
  ├──────────────┼─────────┼─────────────┼────────────┤
  │ Round trips  │ 5       │ 9           │ 1.8x fewer │
  └──────────────┴─────────┴─────────────┴────────────┘

I had it run a separate analysis using traditional vs. opty and count the actual tool calls and input token counts. My prompt was basically, "do a full analysis of this entire codebase."