It is not opus. It is good, works really fast and suprisingly through about its decisions. However I've seen it hallucinate things.

Just today I asked for a code review and it flagged a method that can be `static`. The problem is it was already static. That kind of stuff never happens with Opus 4.5 as far as I can tell.

Also, in an opencode Plan mode (read only). It generated a plan and instead of presenting it and stopping, decided to implement it. Could not use the edit and write tools because the harness was in read only mode. But it had bash and started using bash to edit stuff. Wouldn't just fucking stop even though the error messages it received from opencode stated why. Its plan and the resulting code was ok so I let it go crazy though...

I've been using K2.5 with OpenCode to do code assessments/fixes and Opus 4.5 with CC to check the work, and so far so good. Very impressed with it so far, but I don't feel comfortable canceling my Claude subscription just yet. Haven't tried it on large feature implementations.

I also wonder if CC can be used with k2.5 with the appropriate API adapter

I've been drafting plans/specs in parallel with Opus and Kimi. Then asking them to review the others plan.

I still find Opus is "sharper" technically, tackles problems more completely & gets the nuance.

But man Kimi k2.5 can write. Even if I don't have a big problem description, just a bunch of specs, Kimi is there, writing good intro material, having good text that more than elaborates, that actually explains. Opus, GLM-4.7 have both complemented Kimi on it's writing.

Still mainly using my z.ai glm-4.7 subscription for the work, so I don't know how capable it really is. But I do tend to go for some Opus in sticky spots, and especially given the 9x price difference, I should try some Kimi. I wish I was set up for better parallel evaluation; feels like such a pain to get started.