modelharness

modelharness

Make every model cheaper or better. Measured on four Claude models — none got worse.

What it actually is: a zero-config Claude Code plugin. On every session start it injects a ≈910-token behavioral core — six working practices distilled from how Fable 5 was trained to operate — plus three on-demand skills and a fresh-context verifier agent. No commands to learn; the model just starts working differently:

✅ Grounded progress — only claims backed by a tool result; "tests fail" said plainly	⚡ Act, don't overplan — enough information means act, not narrate options
🎯 Autonomy calibration — decides minor things itself, asks only on scope or destructive actions	🔍 Self-verification loops — a checkable definition of done, real checks on a cadence, a fresh-context verifier before "done"
🔀 Delegation triggers — explicit rules for when to fan work out to subagents	📝 Cross-session memory — writes lessons and plans to files, so the next session can pick up the work

What the 17 tasks test

🐛 Bug hunts 4 tasks · 96 runsFind and fix planted defects: TTL cache, CSV quoting, rate limiter, date rollover	✨ Features from spec 4 tasks · 96 runsBuild to a written spec: retry backoff, config merging, cursor pagination, slugify	♻️ Refactors 2 tasks · 48 runsRestructure code with zero behavior change, verified structurally
🧠 Long-horizon builds 2 tasks · 48 runsMulti-stage pipelines where later steps depend on earlier decisions	🧩 Spec-dense traps 3 tasks · 72 runs18+ interacting rules (discount engine, mini-interpreter) that punish shallow reading	🔁 Session handoffs 2 tasks · 48 runsA fresh session must finish another session's work — memory is the only bridge

17 tasks × 3 attempts × 8 configurations = 408 runs. Grading is hidden and binary: test suites the agent never sees decide pass/fail. No LLM judge. Every task ships with a reference solution proving it solvable.

The results

The numbers, exactly

Same 17 tasks, 3 runs per configuration. Higher pass rate and lower cost/time are better. 🟢 = better with modelharness, 🔴 = worse (explained in the last row).

The bottom line. modelharness packages the same working practices Fable 5 was trained on. The practices land hardest on Opus 4.8 — the flagship model available on every subscription — at −14% cost / −16% time, and that win is statistically significant (see below). Even Fable 5, competing against itself, runs significantly faster. On smaller models the average hides a trade: Haiku saves up to 19% on routine bugfixes but spends more on spec-dense tasks — extra verification work that is exactly what lifted its pass rate from 98% to 100%. Cheaper where it can be, more careful where it must be — and never significantly worse on any model.

How confident are we?

Averages can hide noise, so we ran the honest test: pair each model's plain vs +modelharness runs on the same task (3 reps averaged), take the per-task percentage delta, and put a 95% confidence interval around the mean across all 17 tasks. A CI that clears zero is a real effect; one that straddles zero is within run-to-run noise. Regenerate with python3 bench/stats.py.

Model	Cost Δ (95% CI)	Time Δ (95% CI)	Tasks cheaper
Opus 4.8	−12.0% [−17.3, −6.7] · significant	−16.5% [−25.3, −7.7] · significant	15 / 17
Fable 5	−3.2% [−10.6, +4.2] · within noise	−11.4% [−20.1, −2.8] · significant	8 / 17
Sonnet 4.6	−4.0% [−11.3, +3.3] · within noise	−7.8% [−15.7, +0.0] · within noise	10 / 17
Haiku 4.5	+0.3% [−8.7, +9.3] · within noise	−4.5% [−17.6, +8.6] · within noise	9 / 17

What this means, stated plainly: the harness delivers a statistically significant cost-and-time reduction on Opus 4.8 — the model most people run on a subscription — and a significant speed-up on Fable 5. For Sonnet 4.6 and Haiku 4.5 the cost and time changes are within noise: not a reliable saving, but never a reliable loss either. Quality is not a sampled average — it is an exact binary count: 407 of 408 runs passed, and the one failure (bare Haiku 4.5 on a session-handoff task) is fixed 3/3 by the harness. So the defensible claim is narrow and true: Opus gets meaningfully cheaper and faster, every model gets a memory-driven reliability floor, and none is significantly worse.

⚡ Install — 30 seconds, zero config

/plugin marketplace add vitaliikapliuk/modelharness
/plugin install modelharness@modelharness

Restart Claude Code — active in every session, on whatever model you run.

Why this exists

Claude Fable 5 left subscription plans on June 23, 2026 — the most capable model became API-only, and most subscribers went back to Opus, Sonnet, or Haiku. That raised a question worth measuring rather than debating: how much of a frontier model's edge is weights, and how much is working practices — the documented behaviors like grounded progress reporting, self-verification, and file-based memory that Anthropic describes in its own migration guides?

So we distilled those practices into a plugin and built a benchmark to find out. The answer surprised us in both directions: on self-contained coding tasks the practices made every model cheaper or better — including Fable 5 itself — while raw correctness at benchmark scale turned out not to separate the models at all. The harness, not the weights, was the measurable difference.

How it works

A SessionStart hook injects a behavioral core (≈910 tokens — your entire context tax, measured, not estimated) implementing six patterns from Anthropic's official Fable 5 migration guide:

Pattern	Source
Grounded progress claims	Fable 5 migration guide → "Ground progress claims on long runs"
Act, don't overplan	Fable 5 migration guide → "Longer turns by default"
Autonomy calibration	Opus 4.8 notes → "More deliberate — asks more often"
Self-verification loops	Fable 5 guide → "Make self-verification explicit"
Delegation triggers	Opus 4.8 notes → "Under-utilization of subagents"
Memory surface	Fable 5 guide → "Give it a memory surface"