At this point, there's really no need to post every single Claude-generated personal project like this on HN - everyone has their own setup and creating your own custom tooling has become trivial.
I'm glad that you have your favorite setup, but it's clear that it was entirely made by Claude (even the README), which means it probably hasn't had any real code review by a human at all.
In reality, it's likely no better than what anyone else could make by just prompting their own Claude Code to create something similar (or, as another person pointed out, just use the built-in sandboxing features of your favorite coding agent).
Do you "demand money" when you do the job you were contracted to do? You make it sound like they're money grubbing and greedy for expecting payment for their services.
Whatever it may sound like, the illustrator didn't just do something nice and help the fellow human (client). If you say "but the illustrator needs the money to support himself", maybe OP also needs the money, maybe his grandparents are ill and have medical bills.
Try it in a private browsing window - if you are logged in, Google will link directly to the result, but if you aren't logged in, it appears to be redirecting through their /goto endpoint
This is something I’ve seen before. Someone is registering domain names related to open source projects and then ‘creating’ slop websites about the projects. Not sure what the play is, or whether this falls into that category, but it’s really weird and takes control away from open source maintainers in a scary way. Maybe it’s extortion or maybe it’s an malware thing. I highly doubt it’s out of the goodness of someone’s heart.
Open source maintainers shouldn’t have to register their projects as trademarks/proactively register domains to avoid this, but that seems like the only strategy?
It would be great if they made their inference capacity for this model available via OpenRouter; the fastest provider on OpenRouter right now is at ~80tps https://openrouter.ai/qwen/qwen3.8-27b#providers
Something a lot of model providers don't talk about: any time an engine uses speculative decoding the throughput will depend on how much your output token distribution matches what the draft model was trained on.
The DFlash2 draft model we're using was trained on a lot of code, so if you use it in a coding agent you'll probably notice it run a lot faster (we've seen it break 300 tok/s).
FYI, I might be missing something but I think your billing system might not be working well - I'm not seeing any indication in the UI that my usage is being deducted from the $5 of free credits.
Hey Daniel! It's a bit hidden, but at the bottom of the billing page there's a "Credits" section which should show usage of any active credits and the balance remaining. The usage/billing metrics are batched/handled async so it might take a minute or so for usage to be reflected. Let us know if it feels off.
> There is no additional fee for using prompt caching. Input tokens, whether served from the cache or processed fresh, are billed at the standard input token rate for the respective model.
Yes, I think this project is a good example of how complex domains aren't simply solvable just by pointing ever more intelligence at the system, even when the code is all open source and the issues are all well defined. I say this as a contributor!
I'm glad that you have your favorite setup, but it's clear that it was entirely made by Claude (even the README), which means it probably hasn't had any real code review by a human at all.
In reality, it's likely no better than what anyone else could make by just prompting their own Claude Code to create something similar (or, as another person pointed out, just use the built-in sandboxing features of your favorite coding agent).
reply