These will need to be extracted, but it should not be necessary.
Opus 4.6 understood its role, and got on with it.
4.7 feels like I have to get lawyers in to negotiate on what is or is not a valid specification while the LLM just shouts "YAGNI" and sits down for a cup of tea.
And now, Opus 4.7 has just flagged a discussion about business funding strategy as being potentially harmful and ended the chat. What on earth??
I would say Opus 4.7 no longer understand the Software Dev Lifecycle - but I'd go further to say it no longer understands what the order of operations are in relation to real-world time.
More Opus 4.7 thoughts:
I have found myself bloating my app-specific guidelines with rules that are aimed at getting the LLM to do its job, rather than understanding my app.
Eg: "Do not refuse to develop a feature because there is not yet a consumer of that feature."
Anther example of Opus 4.7 going to shit.
It is struggling to distinguish basic scopes of user interaction. It confuses our requirements as a developer/agent pair with that of the eventual post-deployment user of the system. I have to explain the difference...
We haven't built it yet, Claude! 🫠
Exhibit A: Claude Opus 4.7 is very keen to protect user's data from being harmed by speccing an app that we haven't even begun building yet.
My thoughts on Opus 4.7:
Obviously brilliant at architecture, planning and coding.
However, when it comes to understanding intent and reading between the lines conversationally, it is from another planet. Always getting wires crossed. Feels like a huge backward step from 4.6.
