Dan Shipper at Every tested this on their Senior Engineer Benchmark. The scores:
Opus 4.7 alone: low 30s GPT-5.5 alone: low-to-mid 40s Opus 4.7 planning + GPT-5.5 executing: 62.5 For reference, human senior engineers score 80-90. The combo nearly doubled either model's
@godofprompt
-
Opus 4.7 plus GPT-5.5 nearly doubles benchmark scores
By
–
-
Single-model workflows: planning vs executing is flawed
By
–
Here's the problem with single-model workflows. Planning and executing are two completely different cognitive tasks. Asking one model to do both is like hiring the same person as your strategist and your builder. Some models think beautifully but execute loosely. Others
-
AI coding workflow pits Opus 4.7 planner against GPT-5.5 executor
By
–
I tested the highest-performing AI coding workflow of 2026. It doesn't use one model. It uses two competing models against each other. Opus 4.7 plans. GPT-5.5 executes. The results aren't close. (Prompts included)
-
The AI skills gap is about problem understanding, not prompts
By
–
This is the entire AI skills gap in one sentence. The people getting the best output from AI aren’t writing better prompts. They understand the problem better before they start prompting. Same model. Same subscription. Wildly different results. The only variable is
-
Smarter models make verification more valuable than prompting
By
–
The models are getting smarter and more confident at the same pace. Your verification system is now more valuable than your prompting system.
-
GPT-5.5: Smartest model but most confidently wrong benchmark results reveal flaw
By
–
GPT-5.5 is the smartest model ever tested. It's also the most confidently wrong. That's not an opinion. That's what the benchmarks say when you read both columns. Artificial Analysis runs AA-Omniscience, a benchmark designed to penalize models that guess instead of saying "I
-
Prompt obsolescence: static instructions fail with evolving AI models
By
–
But the complaint threads are missing the most important variable. Your prompts are static. The models are not. That prompt you wrote six months ago was optimized for a model that no longer exists. The instruction structure, the constraints, the output format. All calibrated
-
AI perceived as dumber, users petition for GPT-4o return
By
–
“AI is getting dumber.” That’s the most popular take on AI Twitter right now. 22,000 people signed a petition to bring back GPT-4o. Reddit threads titled “GPT-5 feels like 3.5” are hitting the front page weekly. Mainstream press picked it up. Reuters, The Guardian, Ars
-
Two models with 1M context, near equal, model just 20% of result
By
–
And this is the part nobody is talking about:
Both models ship with 1M-token context. Both are within a few points of each other on most tasks. The gap between them is smaller than the gap between a good prompt and a bad one. The model is maybe 20% of your result. Your -
Professional comparison of Claude and GPT-5.5 capabilities
By
–
The definitive ranking doesn't exist. Here's what does: → Complex reasoning, code review, multi-file refactoring: Claude Opus 4.7
→ Agentic execution, terminal workflows, tool orchestration: GPT-5.5
→ Interactive speed: Claude
→ Cost at scale: GPT-5.5 The professionals