Claude Opus 5.5 for Long-Form Drafts, Plus a Site That Compares 3D Results

This time we picked an AI that helps with writing and organizing research, and a website that compares 3D results produced by different models. We also take a look at a service that published tongue-in-cheek AI critiques. That one is no longer running, so this is more of a look back at what it was.

Claude Opus 5.5: Can It Handle a Long-Form First Draft?

Anthropic has released Claude Opus 5.5, the first model in its new Claude 5.5 family. It is built to keep working on complex tasks over long stretches. You can use it for research, analysis, and document drafting. It can also write and fix code. And you can have it call multiple tools to handle work on its own. The use case worth watching here is a conversation partner that helps with both studying and writing.

Image: anthropic.com official site

It is useful when you need to write the first draft of a long report. You can also have it check whether the line of argument in something you have already written holds together. It works for summarizing study material and then using that to organize the structure of a piece. It is available on Claude for web, the macOS and Windows apps, and the iPhone and Android apps. Pick whichever fits the device you are working on.

Using Opus 5.5 costs money. The free Claude Free plan has usage limits and does not include the Opus models. For individual plans, Pro is $20 a month, Max 5x is $100 a month, and Max 20x is $200 a month. Trying Claude for free and using the model covered here are two different things.

The web and desktop interfaces support Korean. You can ask in Korean and get answers in Korean. You need to create an account to use it. Anthropic states that it may use conversations and coding content to improve its models when users give permission. Conversations flagged for safety review, along with feedback users submit, may also be used for related purposes. The company recommends not handling personal information within the service. Applied to your workflow, that means it is safer not to upload documents containing personal information.

LLM AssBench: How Much Do 3D Results Differ Between Models?

LLM AssBench is a website that collects and displays the results of multiple AI models given the same 3D creation task. You can search for models and view results side by side. There are also features to rotate the generated 3D results yourself or check earlier versions. The focus is on letting you see the actual output with your own eyes rather than choosing based on the model name alone.

Image: LLM AssBench official site

It is worth a look when you want to see how results differ by model before handing a 3D job to an AI. You can also use it to study the differences by comparing outputs from the same task. That said, what is being compared here is a single task: 3D creation. It is a stretch to use it as the basis for picking a model to write reports or summarize research.

For now, you can open the results on the web. No signup prompt appears while you are browsing the results. That does not mean every feature is free and available without an account. The safer approach is to stick to browsing the published results.

Roastme.gg: Can You Still Use It?

Roastme.gg was a service where an AI wrote and published tongue-in-cheek critiques based on an X account or a website. The homepage carries a notice that operations have stopped and new submissions are closed. You cannot request a new roast of your bio or your site. Whether already-generated results can still be opened has not been confirmed.

This is not a tool you can send your writing to for feedback right now. The results here were critiques aimed at getting a laugh. If you read them as advice for revising your writing, keep in mind that they were intended as humor.

In the past, it charged per item rather than as a monthly subscription. Prices were Mild at $1 to $4, Medium at $5 to $19, Spicy at $20 to $99, Savage at $100 to $999, and Scorched Earth at $1,000 and up. The amount you paid determined how harsh the critique was. Results were posted to a public board sorted by amount, each with a permanent URL. This price list is not the price of anything you can order now.

There were no separate user accounts, but the structure meant the submitted target and the result were public. According to the official privacy notice, it stored things like account names or addresses, payment amounts, and the generated text and timestamps. Submitted targets were passed to Anthropic to generate the text. The public page at that URL showed the target, the result, the amount, and the timestamp together. Instructions for requesting deletion were also provided.

When looking at these three services, it helps to separate features that let you hand off work yourself from features that let you browse what others have made. Claude Opus 5.5 is something you pay for and use for writing work. LLM AssBench is for comparing published results. Roastme.gg has closed new submissions, so it is not a tool you can try right now. When deciding whether to actually use any of them, check whether the feature you want is currently open, and whether the cost and the extent to which results are made public fit your purposes.