Claude Code and What Comes Next

I opened Claude Code and gave it the command: “Develop a web-based or software-based startup idea that will make me $1000 a month where you do all the work by generating the idea and implementing it. i shouldn’t have to do anything at all except run some program you give me once. it shouldn’t require any coding knowledge on my part, so make sure everything works well.” The AI asked me three multiple choice questions and decided that I should be selling sets of 500 prompts for professional users for $39. Without any further input, it then worked independently… FOR AN HOUR AND FOURTEEN MINUTES creating hundreds of code files and prompts. And then it gave me a single file to run that created and deployed a working website (filled with very sketchy fake marketing claims) that sold the promised 500 prompt set. You can actually see the site it launched here, though I removed the sales link, which did actually work and would have collected money. I strongly suspect that if I ignored my conscience and actually sold these prompt packs, I would make the promised $1,000. This is Claude Code at work, one of a new generation of AI coding tools that represent a sudden capability leap in AI in the past month or so. What makes these new tools suddenly powerful is not one breakthrough, but a combination of two advances. First, the latest AIs are capable of doing far more work autonomously while self-correcting many of their errors, especially in programming tasks. Second, the AIs are being given an “agentic harness” of tools and approaches that they can use to solve problems in new ways. The result of these two factors has led to big leaps in the latest AI tools made by the big AI companies. Unfortunately for most of us who want to experiment with AI, these new tools are built for programmers. And I mean they are really built for programmers: they assume that you understand Python commands and programming best practices and they are wrapped in interfaces that look like something from a 1980s computer lab. They are also explicitly designed to help analyze, troubleshoot, and write code using approaches that fit into existing programmer workflows. In a lot of ways, this is a shame, because these systems are actually broadly useful to knowledge workers of all types, and, by seeing what they can do (and experimenting with them yourself), I think you can learn a lot about the future of AI. In this post, we are going to focus on one in particular, Claude Code powered by Opus 4.5, but it works similarly to its main competition OpenAI’s Codex with GPT-5.2 and Google’s Antigravity with Gemini 3. To return to the example of the startup company launched by Claude Code, as practically impressive as this was, it was only touching a small part of the capabilities of what the tool is capable of. In that case, I only used Claude Code for coding, but if I ask it to do user testing of the live site from different personas and give me a report, it deploys one of its many tools, its connection to the web browser on my computer. Claude takes control of the browser and goes to the site it created, scrolling through it like a human would. On the first pass, it gave me a pretty optimistic report, but, because I know that AIs tend to be sycophantic, I also asked it for a more critical one. This second report did a better job nailing potential issues (and spotting the sketchy fake reviews that were on the site). As a next step, I could easily ask it to implement its suggestions, continuing the process with minimal input from me. A big reason Claude Code is so good is that it uses a wide variety of tricks in its agentic harness that allow its very smart AI, Opus 4.5, to overcome many of the problems of LLMs. For example, an interesting thing happened while the AI was doing its user research: its context window filled up. As you might know, AIs can only “remember” so much information at a time. This context window is often quite long by human standards (150,000 words or more) but it gets filled up remarkably quickly because it contains your entire conversation, every document the AI reads, every image it takes, and the initial system prompts that help guide the AI. There is no real long-term memory for AI, so as soon as the context window fills up, the AI cannot remember anything else. If you are just having a casual chat, this isn’t really a problem. Any long conversation with ChatGPT features a rolling context window, the AI is constantly forgetting the oldest part of its conversation, but it is generally able to keep up by improvising based on the most recent parts of the discussion. If you are doing real work, however, having the AI forget some of your code as it reads new code becomes a big problem. Claude Code handles this issue in a different way. When it runs out of context, it stops and “compacts” the conversation so far, taking notes about exactly where it was when it stopped. Then it clears its context window, and the fresh version of Claude Code reads the notes and reviews the progress to date - think of the amnesiac main character from the movie Memento looking at his tattoos for reference whenever he wakes up with no memory. These notes give Claude everything it needs to keep moving. This is why Claude can run for hours at a time, it carefully notes what it is doing along the way, and produces interim work, like pieces of software and reports, that it can refer to. This is not the only trick Claude Code uses to get around the limitations of AI. Another is its use of Skills. As everyone reading this post knows, users have to prompt AIs to do things. These prompts act as instructions, and, as AIs have gotten smarter, they have become much better at executing complex prompts, even hundred page long prompts. These long prompts take up a lot of the context window, however, and require a giving the AI the right prompt at the right time. That either means that you, as a human, have to keep prompting the AI or you have to design a complex automated system that keeps feeding the AI prompts. Skills solve this problem. They are instructions that the AI decides when to use, and they contain not just prompts, but also the sets of tools the AI needs to accomplish a task. Does it need to know how to build a great website? It loads up the Website Creator Skill which explains how to build a website and the tools to use when doing it. Does it need to build an Excel spreadsheet? It loads the Excel skill with its own instructions and tools. To make another movie reference, it is like when Neo in the Matrix gets martial arts instructions uploaded to his head and acquires a new skill: “I know kung fu.” Skills can let an AI cover an entire process by swapping out knowledge as needed. For example, Jesse Vincent released an interesting free list of skills that let Claude Code handle a full software development process, picking up skills as needed, starting with brainstorming and planning before progressing all the way to testing code. Skill creation is technically very easy, it is done in plain language, and the AI can actually help you create them (more on this in a bit). Along with Skills, Claude Code has other tricks up its sleeve to manage its limited context window and solve hard problems. It can also create subagents - effectively launching other, specialized AIs to solve specific problems. This can be useful in many ways. Because Opus is a large, expensive model, it can hand off easier tasks to cheaper and faster models. It also allows Claude to run many different processes at once, making it work like a team, rather than an individual. And these models can be very specialized with their own context windows. For example, I built separate subagents for research and for image creation. The main AI model “hires” these agents when needed to do specialized work. And you don’t even need to create your own tools. Anyone can share Skills or subagents, and companies who want AI agents to work with their pr…