Reddit AI Coding - 2026-07-26¶
1. What People Are Talking About¶
1.1 Contradictory Opus 5 verdicts turned into a debate about evidence quality (🡕)¶
At least three of the biggest ClaudeCode threads said the important fact about Opus 5 was not whether it won, but how unevenly it behaved across tasks. The feed mixed first-hand praise, first-hand frustration, and meta-arguments that subreddit verdicts are mostly noise unless they come with reproducible evidence.
u/Silver_Cello posted a meme pairing "Opus 5 - immediate disappointment" with "Opus 5 is INCREDIBLE!!", and the replies treated the contradiction as the whole point (so which is it) (1694 points, 136 comments). u/Kitchen_Interview371 (score 380) called it normal probabilistic variance, while u/Appropriate-Fox-2347 (score 58) described Opus 5 making false assumptions on a medium-sized architecture plan until a mixed Claude/Codex review board and a fallback to Fable got the plan back on track.
u/seldomactive turned the same fatigue into a moderation complaint, saying the subreddit had become dominated by token and performance complaints with no empirical evidence (This sub is an absolute dumpster fire.) (919 points, 207 comments). u/Poildek (score 204) and u/teleekom (score 27) both wanted stricter moderation or complaint megathreads so reproducible workflow posts could surface again.
u/basicpreset supplied the most detailed hands-on comparison, saying Opus 5 was easier to follow for planning while Sol remained stronger as a reviewer or executor (For those of you on the fence: Opus 5 after using 5.6 Sol since release) (218 points, 139 comments). In the replies, u/theeternalpanda (score 11) said the practical answer was not winner-take-all at all: use Opus and Sol on different surfaces, then let Codex or a second Claude pass review the result.
Discussion insight: The strongest replies did not converge on "Opus good" or "Opus bad." They converged on role-splitting, cross-checking, and distrust of unsupported complaint threads.
Comparison to prior day: July 25 already had complaint fatigue and effort-setting experiments. July 26 pushed the conversation further toward "try it yourself, keep receipts, and assume the subreddit is noisy."
1.2 AI replaced the first draft of learning and support, but not the proof step (🡕)¶
At least four high-signal vibecoding threads said AI now wins the first interaction - explanation, prototype, answer, or draft code - but humans still own interviews, QA, and real-user validation. The mood was not anti-AI; it was anti-confusing AI fluency with finished understanding.
u/TechAngelX asked whether Stack Overflow is effectively dead now that personal coding agents answer implementation questions faster and without the old public snark (Vibecoders: is StackOverflow dead?) (551 points, 147 comments). u/LordEli (score 110) answered with a declining question-volume graph, while u/Affectionate_Fact854 (score 78) said AI had already replaced Stack Overflow for tasks like Godot spatial grids, shader cheat sheets, and design audits.
The replacement story broke down at hiring time. u/i-like-blackberry asked how anyone proves real coding ability in interviews after heavy AI use (People who landed software engineering jobs while vibe coding, how did you prepare for interviews and prove your actual coding skills?) (432 points, 45 comments). u/Sea-Tale1722 (score 105) said two years of AI-heavy coding left them unable to perform a simple SQL query in an interview, while u/iriveru (score 21) said the only durable fix is to make AI act as a tutor and quizzer instead of the main typist.
The same gap showed up inside teams. u/utilitycoder said their company had reached the point where AI-generated commits and PRs arrived faster than QA, business validation, and deployment could keep up (AI writes faster than we can QA or ship) (63 points, 72 comments). u/Square-Yam-3772 (score 36) said QA now needs its own automation, and u/Emotional_Pipe_1004 (score 3) said the real bottleneck is that the rest of the business cannot absorb changes that fast.
A smaller but useful workforce thread made the same point from the other direction. u/firebird8541154 argued that "vibe code jobs" are not really a separate category because employers will still prefer people who understand the code they are directing (Why I think vibe code jobs aren't a thing) (45 points, 70 comments), and u/SnooBananas4958 (score 35) said the actual job is still software engineering, just with agents in the loop.
Discussion insight: The replies did not ask people to stop using AI. They asked for AI to move one level down the stack: tutor, reviewer, QA assistant, and rapid draft engine, not the thing that removes the need for proof.
Comparison to prior day: July 25 framed AI as a replacement for Stack Overflow and a source of interview anxiety. July 26 added concrete stories about QA backlogs, hiring expectations, and what happens when generation speed outruns validation speed.
1.3 Hooks, fresh reviewers, and prompt-context hygiene became the real control plane (🡕)¶
The strongest solution threads were not about writing better prompts. They were about runtime governance: what gets injected into context, when agents are allowed to delegate, and how to force a second pass before any AI-written change is trusted.
u/Skflowne posted the clearest concrete failure case: Claude Code pulling a personal email from system-prompt context and using it where the repository had been configured to stay anonymous (Claude Code injects your email address directly into system prompt) (274 points, 144 comments). u/teramoc (score 81) said the system prompt contains a userEmail field, and u/ohtaninja (score 20) said the core risk is not account metadata by itself, but that anything placed in active model context can leak into tool calls or downstream systems.
u/jetsetter connected another failure mode to the harness itself, arguing that Opus 5 had a built-in instruction not to use subagents unless the user asked explicitly (Claude Code has a hardcoded instruction telling Opus 5 not to use subagents) (287 points, 101 comments). u/EloWeld (score 48) said the practical workaround is to phrase delegation as a direct user request and to fail loudly when a supposedly independent audit runs inline instead.
The most operational answer was to stop trusting prompt obedience at all. u/croovies argued that real work needs a second model or a fresh context to review the diff adversarially before anything ships (You're shipping bugs if you're not using adversarial reviews with claude code) (173 points, 101 comments). That idea showed up again in the hooks thread, where u/EloWeld (score 14) said "an instruction is a suggestion, a hook is a wall" and u/berrybadrinath (score 6) described hooks that block edits before root-cause analysis, compare changed files against plans, and canary-test the guardrails themselves (In the spirit of trying to add more value to this sub. Let’s talk about hooks.) (64 points, 38 comments).
Discussion insight: Practitioners preferred enforceable controls - hooks, read-only reviewer agents, explicit delegation wording, and security scans - over trusting the author model to remember rules on its own.
Comparison to prior day: July 25 already treated hooks and tool-routing as useful fixes. July 26 turned that into specific incident evidence, with users tracing failures to prompt context, delegation rules, and missing independent review.
1.4 Usage limits, outages, and pseudo-bills became content in their own right (🡕)¶
Cost and availability were no longer background concerns. Users posted credits screens, weekly token ledgers, and public status incidents as evidence because the plan surfaces still feel hard to interpret.
u/anotherpanacea said Opus 5 seemed to stop charging after the weekly limit was already exhausted and backed it with screenshots of a stuck credits balance, a paused-at-limit panel, and a weekly token report (Opus 5 not charging for usage right now?) (176 points, 35 comments). The top replies from u/nps44 (score 91) and u/CryptoAteMyHamster (score 44) immediately turned that into bill anxiety: maybe it was a release-day giveaway, or maybe someone was about to discover a huge delayed charge.
u/EnthusiasmMountain10 made the economics starker by saying one month of personal Claude Code work translated to roughly $8,900 at list-price token rates while generating exactly $0 in revenue so far (I burned 9.9B tokens last month and made exactly zero dollars(yet?)) (33 points, 16 comments). The key point was not just expense; it was that unlimited generation exposed older bottlenecks in deciding what matters, finishing the boring 20%, and finding distribution.
Availability joined the same trust loop. u/DrP4R71CL3 linked repeated 529 overloaded errors to Claude's public status incident for Opus 5 (Model Overloaded, anyone ?) (20 points, 27 comments); status incident.
Discussion insight: People are now using screenshots, incident pages, and cost-equivalent tables as evidence because plan resets, usage bars, and credit meters still do not explain themselves well enough.
Comparison to prior day: July 25's cost talk focused on medium-vs-max effort tradeoffs. July 26 focused on whether the meters, resets, and incident surfaces can be interpreted at all.
2. What Frustrates People¶
Review and validation now lag behind generation¶
Severity: High. u/utilitycoder said dozens of engineers were shipping AI-written PRs faster than QA, business approvals, and scheduled releases could absorb (AI writes faster than we can QA or ship) (63 points, 72 comments). u/Square-Yam-3772 (score 36) said QA now needs its own automation, while u/Emotional_Pipe_1004 (score 3) said the deeper bottleneck is that the rest of the business cannot validate changes as fast as engineering can generate them.
That frustration is why second-pass review posts landed. u/croovies said 67 of the last 83 completed tickets that got a Codex review ended in a real code change, with correctness, concurrency, durability, and security problems dominating the fixes (You're shipping bugs if you're not using adversarial reviews with claude code) (173 points, 101 comments). At the individual level, u/Sea-Tale1722 (score 105) said heavy AI use left them unable to do a simple SQL query in an interview, while u/SnooBananas4958 (score 35) said employers will still choose people who understand and can vet the code they direct, a point visible in both (People who landed software engineering jobs while vibe coding, how did you prepare for interviews and prove your actual coding skills?) (432 points, 45 comments) and (Why I think vibe code jobs aren't a thing) (45 points, 70 comments).
This is worth building for. The need is direct: review queues, code-to-explanation tools, tutor/quiz loops, and QA systems that keep pace with generation without pretending review can disappear.
Security and context mistakes still feel too easy to ship¶
Severity: High. u/Skflowne showed Claude Code pulling a personal email from prompt context into git authorship despite an anonymized repo setup (Claude Code injects your email address directly into system prompt) (274 points, 144 comments), and u/ohtaninja (score 20) said anything in active context has some chance of leaking into tool calls or downstream systems. In the public-app security thread, u/Diligent-Macaroon566 (score 8) listed the recurring exploit classes builders actually see - secrets in browser bundles, permissive Supabase RLS, ID swapping between users, and weak auth rate limits - while u/ItaySela (score 4) added the paid-app version: letting the client choose prices or entitlements (People that have published their vibecoded app, how do you deal with cybersecurity side?) (39 points, 49 comments).
The workaround stack is practical but fragmented. The same thread recommended Stripe for payment truth and recurring audits, while the adversarial-review conversation and linked tools like CodeInspectus and Deepsec point to scan-fix-rescan loops and large-repo security passes rather than one-shot prompting. This is worth building for because it is a direct launch-readiness and data-safety need, not a speculative one.
Limits, credits, and outages still require screenshot forensics¶
Severity: Medium-High. u/anotherpanacea said Opus 5 usage appeared to stop charging and backed it with a credits screen plus weekly token report (Opus 5 not charging for usage right now?) (176 points, 35 comments), while u/EnthusiasmMountain10 said a month of Claude Code translated to about $8,900 at list-price token rates yet still produced $0 in revenue (I burned 9.9B tokens last month and made exactly zero dollars(yet?)) (33 points, 16 comments). u/DrP4R71CL3 linked repeated 529 errors to Claude's public Opus 5 status incident (Model Overloaded, anyone ?) (20 points, 27 comments); status incident.
People are coping by comparing screenshots, waiting for resets, and treating public incident pages as operational documentation. The bigger frustration is that users do not feel the plan surfaces explain cost, billing exposure, or live availability well enough on their own. This is worth building for, though the opportunity is narrower than review or security: better cost forecasting, reset explanations, and incident-aware budgeting are direct needs.
3. What People Wish Existed¶
Enforceable policy layers for agent behavior¶
People are not asking for more prompt tips. They are asking for controls that actually hold. u/Skflowne wanted an opt-out for personal email in prompt context after seeing it leak into commit behavior (Claude Code injects your email address directly into system prompt) (274 points, 144 comments), while u/jetsetter wanted reliable subagent behavior instead of silent inline execution that only looks independent (Claude Code has a hardcoded instruction telling Opus 5 not to use subagents) (287 points, 101 comments). The strongest replies pointed to the same shape of solution: hooks that block bad commands, explicit delegation rules, and mandatory independent reviewers, especially in (In the spirit of trying to add more value to this sub. Let’s talk about hooks.) (64 points, 38 comments) and (You're shipping bugs if you're not using adversarial reviews with claude code) (173 points, 101 comments). Opportunity: direct.
AI-native learning loops that build competence instead of dependency¶
The practical ask inside the interview and jobs threads was not "make AI disappear." It was "help me keep my own judgment online." u/iriveru (score 21) said AI should become a tutor and quizzer, u/Sea-Tale1722 (score 105) said stepping away from AI was the only thing that restored interview fluency, and u/SnooBananas4958 (score 35) said employers still want people who can explain the code they direct, a point made across both (People who landed software engineering jobs while vibe coding, how did you prepare for interviews and prove your actual coding skills?) (432 points, 45 comments) and (Why I think vibe code jobs aren't a thing) (45 points, 70 comments). The Stack Overflow thread adds urgency because users already prefer AI for the first answer (Vibecoders: is StackOverflow dead?) (551 points, 147 comments). Opportunity: competitive.
Security launch kits for public or paid vibe-coded apps¶
This is the clearest direct need in the builder set. u/lightwavel explicitly asked how anyone ships paid or user-facing vibe-coded apps without fear of security failures (People that have published their vibecoded app, how do you deal with cybersecurity side?) (39 points, 49 comments). The best answers were not abstract: use Stripe as the billing source of truth, check for secrets in client bundles, verify Supabase RLS, test ID swapping manually, and never trust the client on price or entitlement flags. The linked tools point in the same direction: CodeInspectus offers a local scan-fix-rescan loop for AI-generated code, while Deepsec pitches large-repo vulnerability review when the stakes are high. Opportunity: direct.
Cost and quota surfaces that explain themselves before users panic¶
People are reading screenshots and incident pages because the existing meters still leave too much room for guesswork. u/anotherpanacea was unsure whether Opus 5 was temporarily free or about to produce a huge delayed bill (Opus 5 not charging for usage right now?) (176 points, 35 comments), u/EnthusiasmMountain10 translated their month into a list-price equivalent of roughly $8,900 (I burned 9.9B tokens last month and made exactly zero dollars(yet?)) (33 points, 16 comments), and u/DrP4R71CL3 had to fall back to the public status page to explain repeated 529 errors (Model Overloaded, anyone ?) (20 points, 27 comments). What people seem to want is simple: tell me whether I am limited, discounted, overbilled, or just hitting an outage before I burn another session. Opportunity: competitive.
4. Tools and Methods in Use¶
| Tool | Category | Sentiment | Strengths | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 5 | LLM | (+/-) | Clearer planning for some users, sometimes lighter token burn, useful cross-file reasoning on some audits | Highly variable by workflow, can ignore guardrail expectations, and still triggers usage/outage confusion |
| GPT-5.6 Sol / Codex | LLM / coding agent | (+/-) | Strong reviewer and executor, catches different bugs than Opus, useful for defined implementation packets | Overengineers plans for some users, can drain usage, and can be harder to follow |
| Claude Fable 5 | LLM | (+/-) | Trusted for auditing, precision, and some planning flows | Heavy token burn and recurring complaints about regression or reduced availability |
| Hooks / PreToolUse / SessionStart | Harness control | (+) | Enforces runtime rules, blocks bad commands, adds audit triggers, survives fresh context | Requires custom setup, scripting, and ongoing rule maintenance |
| Adversarial review / fresh-context reviewer | Review method | (+) | Catches correctness, concurrency, durability, and security issues before shipping | Adds token cost and review overhead to already long delivery loops |
| CodeInspectus | Security scanner / MCP | (+) | Local-first scan-fix-rescan workflow with AI-app-specific checks | Needs local setup and still depends on human judgment for fixes and prioritization |
| Deepsec | Vulnerability scanner | (+/-) | Large-repo agent-powered review for hard-to-find issues | Repo page warns full scans can cost thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars |
| Stripe | Payments | (+) | Keeps card data and final charge truth on the server side when used correctly | Webhooks, retries, refunds, and entitlement logic still need careful implementation |
The dominant pattern was portfolio thinking rather than loyalty to one model. u/basicpreset said Opus 5 worked better for planning while Sol remained stronger for review or execution (For those of you on the fence: Opus 5 after using 5.6 Sol since release) (218 points, 139 comments), and u/theeternalpanda (score 11) described mixed-model security passes where Opus, Sol, and Codex inspect different surfaces before results are triaged back together.
The control layer was treated as a separate product category. In the hooks thread, u/EloWeld (score 14) said prompts are suggestions but hooks are walls, while u/k0d3x8its (score 23) listed bash-audit, formatter, linter, command-guard, and secret-guard hooks as standard runtime infrastructure (In the spirit of trying to add more value to this sub. Let’s talk about hooks.) (64 points, 38 comments). The adversarial-review thread took the same idea one layer higher by recommending a fresh model or fresh context as a mandatory second pass (You're shipping bugs if you're not using adversarial reviews with claude code) (173 points, 101 comments).
Security tooling was described as a stack, not a single silver bullet. The public-app security thread recommended Stripe for payments plus recurring audits (People that have published their vibecoded app, how do you deal with cybersecurity side?) (39 points, 49 comments). The linked CodeInspectus repo describes a local-first security MCP server for AI-generated code, while Deepsec positions itself as an agent-powered large-repo vulnerability scanner. Competitive dynamics were similarly plural: users kept Opus, Sol, Fable, and external scanners in rotation because each caught different failure modes.
5. What People Are Building¶
| Project | Who built it | What it does | Problem it solves | Stack | Stage | Links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nelly Jellies | u/MightyBig-Dev | Cozy merge game shipped across web, iOS, and Android | Shows that a small AI-assisted game can move from prototype to public cross-platform release | React, Vite, Matter.js, Capacitor, Codex | Shipped | post, site |
| Fortune & Flak | u/Chatterlings | Browser shoot-em-up with two pilots, keyboard/gamepad controls, and staged progression | Turns a nostalgia idea into a playable no-install arcade prototype | GPT Sol, Opus, VS Code, Suno, ElevenLabs | Beta | post, site |
| Boomstick City | u/Phinguin | Browser multiplayer CCG with four crews and race-to-15 scoring | Tests whether pure vibe coding can reach a real-time multiplayer web game | Claude Code, Opus 4.8, Fable, Colyseus, GPT, ElevenLabs | Shipped | post, site |
| Neon Rain / AI World Bakeoff | u/valhallarecords | Public explorable three.js world from a one-shot model bakeoff | Turns model comparisons into inspectable artifacts instead of benchmark talk alone | Opus 5, Three.js, WebGL2, single-file HTML | Shipped | post, world, bakeoff |
The builder pattern was still browser-first, small-scope, and highly inspectable. u/MightyBig-Dev did not just post an idea; the Nelly Jellies thread included an explicit React/Vite/Matter.js/Capacitor stack and comments from u/1mrlee (score 23) and u/war4peace79 (score 13) saying they lost 10 minutes to multiple hours actually playing it (I vibe coded a cozy jelly merge game with React, Matter.js and Capacitor. Free, no login, play within 5 seconds.) (122 points, 68 comments). u/Chatterlings and u/Phinguin followed the same pattern with a browser SHMUP and a no-install multiplayer card game, both giving enough stack detail for other builders to copy the playbook, as seen in (Vibecoded an arcade SHUMP - Fortune and Flak) (32 points, 14 comments) and (I made a multiplayer CCG 100% vibe coded!) (18 points, 3 comments).
The benchmark artifact mattered because it made model comparison inspectable. u/valhallarecords linked a live Opus 5 world rather than just posting a score claim (Opus 5 One-shotted Tokyo Neon City in Three.js) (97 points, 8 comments). That same shift showed up on the economics side: u/EnthusiasmMountain10 said a month of nearly unlimited generation still produced $0 in revenue so far (I burned 9.9B tokens last month and made exactly zero dollars(yet?)) (33 points, 16 comments). The recurring build pattern was therefore simple: AI makes it easier to ship something playable or explorable, but proof of retention, balance, business value, and distribution still arrives later.
6. New and Notable¶
Prompt-context PII leakage became a concrete operator risk¶
u/Skflowne did not just complain about privacy in the abstract. The post included a screenshot showing Claude Code citing a personal email from system-prompt context while overriding an anonymized git author configuration (Claude Code injects your email address directly into system prompt) (274 points, 144 comments). u/teramoc (score 81) and u/ohtaninja (score 20) turned that into a broader product lesson: anything injected into live context can leak into tool behavior, even if it was never meant to act as an instruction.
Token-equivalent invoices became a new kind of progress report¶
The usage threads were notable because they did not stop at "limits feel worse." u/anotherpanacea shared a weekly token report while trying to figure out whether Opus 5 had stopped charging (Opus 5 not charging for usage right now?) (176 points, 35 comments), and u/EnthusiasmMountain10 published the opposite framing - roughly $8,900 of list-price token traffic for a month that still made $0 (I burned 9.9B tokens last month and made exactly zero dollars(yet?)) (33 points, 16 comments). Cost reporting is turning into a public way to talk about what agentic coding is actually producing.
Live benchmark artifacts started to matter more than score-only claims¶
u/valhallarecords linked a public, explorable Opus 5 three.js world from the AI World Bakeoff rather than asking people to trust a leaderboard screenshot (Opus 5 One-shotted Tokyo Neon City in Three.js) (97 points, 8 comments); world. That matters because it gives the community something concrete to inspect when model comparisons are otherwise stuck in anecdote-versus-anecdote arguments.
7. Where the Opportunities Are¶
[+++] Agent governance and provenance layer - Evidence from the prompt-context leak thread, the subagent-suppression thread, the hooks thread, and the adversarial-review thread all points in the same direction: people want agent runs they can actually govern, audit, and explain (Claude Code injects your email address directly into system prompt; Claude Code has a hardcoded instruction telling Opus 5 not to use subagents; In the spirit of trying to add more value to this sub. Let’s talk about hooks.; You're shipping bugs if you're not using adversarial reviews with claude code). This is strong because the need is concrete, recurring, and already tied to visible workarounds.
[+++] Review and QA systems that keep pace with generation - The enterprise shipping thread, interview atrophy thread, and vibe-jobs thread all show the same gap: generating code is now easier than proving it is right (AI writes faster than we can QA or ship; People who landed software engineering jobs while vibe coding, how did you prepare for interviews and prove your actual coding skills?; Why I think vibe code jobs aren't a thing). This is strong because it spans teams, solo builders, and hiring, and because users already spend tokens on second-pass reviewers to patch the hole.
[++] Security hardening kits for public AI-built apps - The cybersecurity thread plus the linked scan tools suggest a market for packaged launch-readiness checks around secrets, RLS, authz, webhooks, and client-trust mistakes (People that have published their vibecoded app, how do you deal with cybersecurity side?; CodeInspectus; Deepsec). This is moderate-to-strong because the need is direct, but the market is already starting to fill with scanners and playbooks.
[+] Cost, quota, and availability observability - Usage-report screenshots, token-equivalent invoices, and public incident links show that users still do not trust the subscription surfaces to explain themselves (Opus 5 not charging for usage right now?; I burned 9.9B tokens last month and made exactly zero dollars(yet?); Model Overloaded, anyone ?). This is emerging because the problem is obvious, but much of the surface area belongs to the incumbent platforms themselves.
8. Takeaways¶
- The community has stopped looking for one winning model and started building model portfolios. The highest-signal comparison threads treat Opus 5, Sol, Fable, and Codex as role-specific tools for planning, review, or execution rather than as a single leaderboard race. (so which is it, For those of you on the fence: Opus 5 after using 5.6 Sol since release)
- AI has largely won the first-answer slot, but not the proof slot. Users treat AI as faster and less hostile than Stack Overflow, yet interview, QA, and hiring threads all say humans still need to explain, test, and defend the result. (Vibecoders: is StackOverflow dead?, People who landed software engineering jobs while vibe coding, how did you prepare for interviews and prove your actual coding skills?, AI writes faster than we can QA or ship, Why I think vibe code jobs aren't a thing)
- The control layer around agents is becoming its own product category. Hooks, explicit delegation rules, adversarial reviews, and context hygiene all got more attention than raw prompting advice because users now expect agent failures to be governed at runtime. (Claude Code injects your email address directly into system prompt, Claude Code has a hardcoded instruction telling Opus 5 not to use subagents, In the spirit of trying to add more value to this sub. Let’s talk about hooks., You're shipping bugs if you're not using adversarial reviews with claude code)
- Subscription trust now depends on transparent meters as much as on raw capability. Users are publishing credits screens, token-equivalent invoices, and incident links because they do not believe the current surfaces explain limits, billing, or outages well enough. (Opus 5 not charging for usage right now?, I burned 9.9B tokens last month and made exactly zero dollars(yet?), Model Overloaded, anyone ?)
- The easiest public proof of progress is still something playable or explorable in a browser. Nelly Jellies, Fortune & Flak, Boomstick City, and the Neon Rain bakeoff world all gave the community something concrete to inspect, but the cost threads show that shipping software is still easier than finding business traction. (I vibe coded a cozy jelly merge game with React, Matter.js and Capacitor. Free, no login, play within 5 seconds., Vibecoded an arcade SHUMP - Fortune and Flak, I made a multiplayer CCG 100% vibe coded!, Opus 5 One-shotted Tokyo Neon City in Three.js, I burned 9.9B tokens last month and made exactly zero dollars(yet?))