Context: Why Model and Platform Matter
As a data scientist and developer, I rely on advanced LLMs (Large Language Models) like Claude Opus, Sonnet, GPT-4.1, and GPT-4o for both architectural planning and daily coding. But I quickly learned that the same model behaves differently depending on the platform—and that maximizing value is about more than just picking the “best” model. It’s about using each tool where it truly shines, while avoiding unnecessary costs and hitting usage thresholds.
Table of Contents
- Context: Why Model and Platform Matter
- Key Insight: Platform ≠ Model
- Two Types of Work, Two Strategies
- Model & Platform Evaluation
- Tooling: What I Keep and Why
- My Workflow: Where Each Tool Wins
- Cost-Optimized Workflow for Planning Tasks
- Coding Workflow: Task-Based Strategy
- The Central Lesson
- Conclusion
Key Insight: Platform ≠ Model
Even if you use the same LLM (e.g., Claude Opus), the experience varies dramatically across platforms:
- Token and session limits
- Commercial policies (free vs. paid, throttling, priorities)
- Infrastructure and reliability
For example, Claude Code CLI often cuts long sessions, while VS Code with Copilot is more stable for extended work. Free tools like Antigravity are fast but not reliable for critical tasks.
Two Types of Work, Two Strategies
I’ve identified two main categories of tasks:
1. Architecture & Planning
- Deep reasoning
- Long context
- Decisions you don’t want to redo
Best tool: Claude Opus (Anthropic) — worth the cost for a few, high-impact sessions.
2. Coding, Writing, and Execution
- Fast iteration
- Debugging, refactoring, testing
Best tool: GitHub Copilot Pro (GPT-4.1/4o) — best cost/benefit for daily work.
Model & Platform Evaluation
Claude Opus
- Excellent for architecture, methodology, academic review
- Expensive and limited
- Use sparingly for strategic decisions
Claude Sonnet
- Good balance of reasoning and code
- Better “daily driver” than Opus for mixed tasks
GPT-4.1 / GPT-4o (Copilot)
- Strongest for coding
- Included in Copilot Pro subscription
- High stability and reliability
Claude Haiku
- Cheap, but not on par with GPT-4.1/4o
- Only for trivial or boilerplate tasks
Mimo (OpenRouter)
- Fast and cheap
- Acceptable for simple code
- Inferior to GPT-4.1 for debugging, refactoring, and long context
Tooling: What I Keep and Why
- GitHub Copilot Pro ($10): Non-negotiable for coding. Includes GPT-4.1/4o. Best ROI overall.
- Claude Pro ($20): Justified if you use Opus 1–2 times/month for critical, long sessions. Emergency button for deep reasoning.
- Antigravity (free): Great for first drafts, but not reliable as a main tool.
- Open Code CLI: Good complement to Claude Code, reduces dependency on Anthropic CLI.
My Workflow: Where Each Tool Wins
- Antigravity + Opus: Initial drafts (architecture, brainstorming)
- VS Code + Opus/Sonnet: Review and refinement
- Claude Code (CLI) + Opus: Final validation
- VS Code + GPT-4.1: Daily coding, refactor, debug
- Sonnet: Reasoning + code
- Opus: Only for irreversible decisions
Cost-Optimized Workflow for Planning Tasks
To further minimize costs while maintaining high quality in planning and writing tasks, I use the following phased strategy:
Phase 1 — Heavy Architecture & Planning
- Google Antigravity + Claude Opus (free):
- Architecture
- Methodology
- Project design
- Long-form text
- Here, Opus is used, but not paid for
Phase 2 — Full Draft
- Google Antigravity + Claude Opus (free):
- Continuous document
- All sections
- No micro-iterations
Phase 3 — Efficient Review & Editing
- VS Code + Copilot
- Claude Sonnet:
- Coherence
- Structure
- Gap detection
- GPT-4.1 / GPT-4o (free):
- Academic style
- Clarity
- Language polish
- No Opus here
- Claude Sonnet:
Phase 4 — Final Validation
- Claude Code (CLI)
- Claude Sonnet:
- Checklist-style prompts
- Focused inputs
- Low consumption, almost never interrupted
- Claude Sonnet:
Economic Rule
- Use Opus only where it’s free or truly essential
- Use Sonnet for evaluation
- Use GPT-4.x for language refinement
Coding Workflow: Task-Based Strategy
Here’s my recommended approach for coding tasks, matching each phase to the best model and platform:
Code Architecture (High-Level)
- Google Antigravity + Claude Opus (free):
- Use Opus only for:
- Designing modules
- Defining interfaces
- Deciding patterns
- Writing pseudocode
- Do NOT request full code here.
- Use Opus only for:
Concrete Implementation (Daily Work)
- VS Code + Copilot
- Default model:
- GPT-4.1 or GPT-4o (included)
- Use for:
- Functions
- Classes
- SQL
- Transformations
- Tests
- Best latency, less verbosity, zero cost
- Default model:
Refactoring and Cleanup
- VS Code + Copilot
- Optimal model:
- Claude Sonnet
- Better than GPT for:
- Simplifying logic
- Reducing duplication
- Detecting code smells
- Rewriting without breaking semantics
- Optimal model:
Real Debugging (Specific Errors)
- VS Code + Copilot
- Recommended order:
- GPT-4.1
- Claude Sonnet
- Opus (only for very tough cases)
- Always provide:
- Exact error
- Stacktrace
- Minimal reproducible code
- Recommended order:
Validation and Security
- Claude Code (CLI)
- Recommended model:
- Claude Sonnet
- Use for:
- Reviewing edge cases
- Security
- Validating assumptions
- Detecting silent bugs
- Checklist-style prompts, not dialogue
- Recommended model:
What NOT to Do (Common Mistakes)
- Do not use Opus as an expensive autocomplete
- Do not repeat long prompts in VS Code
- Do not pass full files unnecessarily
- Do not mix design and coding in a single prompt
The Central Lesson
Premium LLMs are not optimized by model, but by workflow. The real value comes from using each tool for what it does best, not from trying to use the “best” model for everything.
Claude Opus isn’t for coding all day. It’s for thinking when you can’t afford to be wrong.
Conclusion
By understanding the strengths and limits of each platform and model, I’ve built a workflow that maximizes productivity and minimizes cost. The key is to be strategic: use premium models for high-leverage thinking, and rely on Copilot Pro for the daily grind. This approach is mature, rational, and cost-effective—and it lets me get the most out of every subscription.
