[R00mi]

I agree with the core of what you're saying, but I think the real split isn't "Anthropic trustworthy or not" — it's: what's proprietary vs what's open in the stuff you're actually building on. Routines, Projects, Artifacts, Skills — that's vendor-specific, disposable by definition. MCP, CLAUDE.md, markdown in your repo — that's portable. If Anthropic pivots or nerfs the thing tomorrow, you just rewire your MCP tools onto another harness in 10 minutes. Personally I build my agent workflows as scripts + MCP tools — called by Claude Code today, callable by whatever harness replaces it tomorrow. The building block is "a set of MCP tools + one CLAUDE.md", not "a Routine defined in Anthropic's console". Functionally the same, zero lock-in. Routines are fine for quick-wins, but the moment you start stacking them into a real workflow you're just moving your tech debt into a proprietary format. At that point you might as well externalize to scripts from the start.

[airbreather]

Yes definately, I do a lot of OT devops and if you want determinstic results then the best use of AI is to get it to write scripts that solve your problems and that you run outside of AI.

Often, the use of AI is a lazy case of not wanting to spend the time to understand the essence of the problem and solve it directly, often far more efficiently. (Not always, but often).

The ability of getting results that surpass your understanding, and quickly, is seducing, but you invariably end up being capped on the usefullness.

AI generally seems to raise anyone with the basic skills to "expert beginner" in almost any field, but it is then a big struggle to get past this stage, without substantial extra work.