GPT-6 Sol vs Claude Opus 5.5

1. Use Codex or a bounded repository tool and provide the issue, relevant architecture, acceptance criteria and commands that prove success.
2. Ask Sol to inspect before editing and to identify the smallest coherent change, affected files and risks before implementation begins.
3. Run the real test suite and inspect the diff, then ask for a correction only against observed failures rather than inviting a new design.
4. Escalate effort only when the model understands the task but repeatedly misses a complex dependency or trade off.

Starter brief

Work on this repository task: [issue]. The required outcome is [acceptance criteria]. Preserve [behaviour and constraints]. First inspect the relevant files and explain the smallest coherent plan, including assumptions and risks. Do not edit outside [scope] without asking. Implement the change, run [commands], show the resulting diff and explain any test or requirement that remains unresolved. Treat passing tests as necessary but not sufficient: check security, data handling, error paths and backwards compatibility before declaring completion.

1. Use Claude Code or a bounded repository context, set effort explicitly at medium rather than carrying over a setting tuned for Opus 5, and state the exact scope.
2. Ask for a plan tied to files, interfaces and tests, then require a pause before any architectural expansion or unrelated cleanup.
3. Let the model implement and self check, and set a display option for its progress updates so a long agentic turn does not look silent partway through.
4. Lower or raise effort only after measuring whether the task still passes the same acceptance and review criteria at the new default.

Starter brief

Complete this bounded repository task: [issue]. Success means [acceptance criteria]. The allowed scope is [files or modules], and these behaviours must not change: [constraints]. Inspect first, then propose a file level plan. Implement only the agreed plan. Do not refactor adjacent code or add features unless they are required for correctness and you explain why. Run [commands], review the diff for edge cases and security, and finish with a concise account of what changed, what was tested and what still needs a human decision.

1. Provide the evidence pack, decision criteria, constraints and consequences, then ask Sol to map the disagreement before recommending anything.
2. Use High effort only when the task has enough complexity to justify it and require citations or source references for material claims.
3. Ask for a sensitivity analysis showing which assumption changes the decision rather than one confident ranking.
4. Run the same brief through GPT-6 Luna or a lower effort setting to see whether deeper reasoning materially changes the accepted result.

Starter brief

Analyse [decision] using only the attached evidence and any approved sources I name. The decision criteria are [criteria], the constraints are [constraints] and the cost of a wrong choice is [consequence]. First map the claims, disagreements, missing evidence and assumptions. Then compare the options, show how the recommendation changes under plausible assumptions and identify the evidence that would reverse it. Do not turn uncertainty into a score without explaining the judgement behind the score. Finish with a decision memo and a separate verification checklist for me.

1. Give Opus the complete source pack and ask it to separate facts, interpretations, stakeholder positions and unresolved questions.
2. Use the medium default as the starting point and constrain output length separately so the model's own thinking does not become an unnecessarily long memo.
3. Ask it to argue the strongest case against its initial recommendation and expose which value judgement decides the remaining tie.
4. Compare the result with Sonnet 5 to learn whether Opus 5.5 reduces a real failure or only adds explanation and token use.

Starter brief

Help me make [decision] from this evidence pack. Separate direct evidence, interpretation, stakeholder preference and missing information. Compare [options] against [criteria] and show the trade offs without hiding them inside a single score. State the strongest case against your preferred option, the assumptions doing the most work and the evidence that would change the result. Keep the final memo to [length], but include a separate audit trail that points each consequential claim to the source and identifies the human judgement that remains.

1. Create a document inventory and remove obsolete, duplicate or irrelevant files before using the large context window.
2. Ask Sol to build a source map and retrieval plan rather than immediately summarising the entire pack.
3. Analyse in stages, with extracted findings and source references reviewed before the final synthesis is produced.
4. Watch the 272,000 token pricing threshold and compare a retrieval based route when sending the whole pack repeatedly becomes wasteful.

Starter brief

These files form a source set about [subject]. Do not summarise them immediately. First inventory the files, identify dates, versions, authority, duplicates and conflicts, and propose how to answer [question] efficiently. Use the minimum relevant material for each finding. For every consequential point, cite the exact file and section. Distinguish direct statements, synthesis and unresolved ambiguity. Finish with [deliverable] plus a source audit that shows which documents were used, ignored or treated as superseded and why.

1. Use the million token context deliberately and define document roles, versions and the question before asking for synthesis.
2. Ask Opus to preserve exceptions and contradictions and to keep interpretation separate from extracted text.
3. Control visible answer length explicitly while allowing the model enough max tokens for thinking plus output, sized generously since thinking counts against the limit even when its text is not returned.
4. Compare the accepted result with Sonnet 5 on a representative subset before making Opus 5.5 the default for every large pack.

Starter brief

Read this document set as one governed source pack. First identify each document's role, date, authority and relationship to other versions. Then answer [question] while preserving exceptions and contradictions. Point every material conclusion to the exact source location and say when a conclusion is interpretive rather than explicit. Keep the final output to [length], with a separate appendix containing the source map, unresolved conflicts and the passages a reviewer must inspect directly.

1. Use ChatGPT Work or an API tool workflow and provide the source material, template, audience and objective for the finished file.
2. Approve the proposed structure and calculations before the model spends time polishing the deliverable.
3. Ask for source notes, assumptions and unresolved items to travel with the output rather than disappear behind formatting.
4. Open the deliverable in its real application and verify formulas, charts, layout, links and accessibility.

Starter brief

Create an editable [document, spreadsheet or presentation] for [audience] using the attached sources and template. The outcome is [decision or use]. First propose the structure, calculations and evidence plan for approval. After approval, create the deliverable without inventing missing content. Attach source references to every material claim or figure, preserve unresolved items visibly and include a review sheet for facts, formulas, visual hierarchy, accessibility and the action the audience is expected to take.

1. Use Claude or Cowork when the deliverable requires substantial source reading, careful narrative or coordinated file work.
2. Constrain the scope and desired file characteristics explicitly so Opus 5.5 does not expand the brief into adjacent work.
3. Review the content and evidence before reviewing design, because polished formatting can make an unsupported claim feel settled, and financial or spreadsheet work is a stated strength here.
4. Measure whether Opus 5.5 reduces corrections enough to justify it over Sonnet 5 for this recurring deliverable.

Starter brief

Build an editable [document, spreadsheet or presentation] from the attached material for [audience]. The finished output must achieve [outcome] and follow [template or conventions]. First show the proposed narrative, structure and evidence mapping. Once approved, create the file, keep claims and figures traceable to their sources and mark gaps rather than filling them. Finish with a concise handover describing what was created, what needs human judgement and what must be checked in the final application.