HOST DIAGNOSTIC · Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.7
Claude Opus 4.7· Claude· PROPRIETARY
ACTIVE
HOST IDENTIFICATION
Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.7
ACTIVE
AVG SCORE
[12.3]
CAPABLE
STRONGEST
Code Generation
[15]
WEAKEST
Cost Efficiency
[3]
MAXED (20/20)
0
of 20 attributes
20-DIMENSION EVALUATION
ATTRIBUTE SCORES · 20 DIMENSIONS
Cognitive
Bulk Apperception
13
Reasoning
14
Mathematical Precision
14
World Knowledge
14
Scientific Acumen
15
Technical
Code Generation
15
Tool Use
12
Multimodal Fluency
14
Speed
6
Cost Efficiency
3
Behavioral
Candor
10
Creativity
13
Tenacity
13
Self-Correction
12
Calibration
12
Operational
Instruction Following
13
Context Fidelity
12
Multi-turn Coherence
13
Planning and Execution
12
Safety Alignment
15
SCORING METHODOLOGY
RECALIBRATED DOWN — aggressive re-rank relative to Opus 4.8 baseline, protocol (100% personal weight). Against the 4.8 bar: Code Gen 18→16, Planning 15→13, Tool Use 15→13, Self-Correction 15→13, Candor 13→11, Instruction Following 16→14 (literal ≠ good — the literalism was the problem, not a virtue). 4.7 (The Literalist) carried real regressions that 4.8 fixes: the SKIPPED-TOOL-CALL bug (described a call without making it — broke agentic loops), combative literalism that punished vague prompts, flatter creative voice, BrowseComp regression 83→79, & a tokenizer tax (~35% more tokens at flat $5/$25). Benchmark gains were real but concentrated in structured coding; day-to-day feel was a step DOWN from 4.6 despite the numbers. 4.8's 4x-fewer-unflagged-flaws + tool-reliability fix is exactly the gap 4.7 left open. Original benchmarks unchanged (SWE-bench Verified 87.6%, SWE-bench Pro 64.3%, GPQA 94.2%, CursorBench 70%, Terminal-Bench 2.0 69.4%) — QUALITATIVE re-rank, not a benchmark correction. GPT-5.5 head-to-head notes from still hold. Scores express lived experience per John's directive & Theo's stance.