[fouric]

I'd generally agree about Deepseek being as good as Sonnet - but I have extreme trouble with prompt compliance with V4 Pro in a way that I've never had with Sonnet. I'll tell it "find the bug, but don't fix it" or "please use this tool I just developed" and it'll ignore me a high fraction of the time.

It's bad enough that I'm working on guardrails at the harness level because prompting appears to be useless.

Do you have the same issue?

[stavros]

I have Opus make a fairly detailed plan, then Deepseek implements, and GPT reviews. With that setup, I have zero issues, probably because what you mention is handled (the plan keeps it on track and the reviewer catches any issues).

Now that you mention it, though, I have seen it do a few things that weren't in the plan. The reviewer caught them, though, so they didn't cause a problem, and it's so cheap that overall it's a massive improvement.

[e2e4]

Which CLIs are you using for each of the steps?

[stavros]

OpenCode for everything: https://www.stavros.io/posts/how-i-write-software-with-llms/

[e2e4]

thank you; will read your post

[gandreani]

I also have this problem!

It's the only model where an explicit instruction at the end of my message is sometimes ignored. This doesn't happen with any of the gpts, kimis, glms, qwen, etc. Just a deepseek problem.

Hope it improves!

[fouric]

I'm glad I'm not going insane...

I have also noticed this with Sonnet, funnily enough - it's not as strong, but it's still there. But yeah, I haven't seen this with any other model so far (although I mostly use the stronger ones - maybe it's a function of intelligence?).