[ehsanu1]

You can't control it to the level of individual LLM requests and orchestration of those. And that is very valuable, practically required, to build a tool like this. Otherwise, you just have a wrapper over another big program and can barely do anything interesting/useful to make it actually work better.

[Wowfunhappy]

What can't you do exactly? You can send Claude arbitrary user prompts—with arbitrary custom system prompts—and get text back. You can then put those text responses into whatever larger system you want.

[ehsanu1]

You don't get a simple request/response paradigm with claude code: 1 message from the user results in a loop that usually invokes many inner LLM requests, among other business logic, resulting in some user-visible output and a bunch of less visible stuff (filesystem changes, etc). You control an input to the outer loop: you can only do some limited stuff with hooks to control what happens within the loop. But there's a lot happening inside that loop that you have no say over.

A simple example: can you arbitrarily manipulate the historical context of a given request to the LLM? It's useful to do that sometimes. Another one: can you create a programmatic flow that tries 3 different LLM requests, then uses an LLM judge to contrast and combine into a best final answer? Sure, you could write a prompt that says do that, but that won't yield equivalent results.

These are just examples, the point is you don't get fine control.

[handfuloflight]

May as well just use Claude Code then.

[Wowfunhappy]

Well, I do use Claude Code myself, but I'd thought the point of OpenCode was that it could combine the responses of multiple LLMs.