5 ms·
Open Code has been the backbone of our entire operation (we used Claude Code before it, and Cursor before that). Hugely grateful for what they do.
by systima 6mo ago
Open Code has been the backbone of our entire operation (we used Claude Code before it, and Cursor before that).
Hugely grateful for what they do.
- james2doyle 6mo agoWhat caused the switch? Also, are you still trying to use Claude models in OpenCode?
- systima 6mo agoYes I regularly plan in Opus 4.6 and execute in “lesser” models ie MiniMax
- zingar 6mo agoYou can access anthropic models with subscription pricing via a copilot license.
- xvector 6mo agoPretty sure that's against TOS. Edit: it's not. https://github.blog/changelog/2026-01-16-github-copilot-now-supports-opencode/ https://github.blog/changelog/2026-01-16-github-copilot-now-... They must be eating insane amounts of $$$ for this. I wouldn't expect it to last
- HawtAds 6mo agoNo, Claude on GitHub Copilot is billed at 3X the usage rate of the other models e.g. GPT-5.4 and you get an extremely truncated context window. See https://models.dev https://models.dev for a comparison against the normal "vanilla" API.
- systima 6mo agoSorry, I missed part of your question: What caused the switch was that we're building AI solutions for sometimes price-conscious customers, so I was already familiar with the pattern of "Use a superior model for setting a standard, then fine-tuning a cheaper one to do that same work". So I brought that into my own workflows (kind of) by using Opus 4.6 to do detailed planning and one 'exemplar' execution (with 'over documentation' of the choices), then after that, use Opus 4.6 only for planning, then "throw a load of MiniMax M2.5s at the problem". They tend to do 90% of the job well, then I sometimes do a final pass with Opus 4.6 again to mop up any issues, this saves me a lot of tokens/money. This pattern wasn't possible with Claude Code, thus my move to Open Code.