Consider modest to major changes in a code base as particularly important to design properly in advance towards having a good intuition of the libraries and implementation details with the end result in mind. Here the challenge was adding i18n support in a blog platform with X-style "show translation" of rich articles through Grok API. Starting off with Claude to lay out the bedrock is better but the cost increases as the accumulation of changes causes contention in the model, in which case a good balance involves including GLM 5.2 wisely for handling the bloat above structuring.

The advantage can be lost when it's unconsidered that there's caveats in using a model that handles everything well except having excessive options to choose from along a wide reaching prompt such as Could you find where highlighting from class hljs is lost in the translation within the grok module with those examples of article html and translation html [..]

Things to watch out for:

But wait — 
Actually, I think I found it
Actually, wait
Let me look at this more carefully
Hmm, but what about
Actually, I don't have
Wait, actually, I think I may have found
Wait, but what about
Hmm, I'm stuck
Actually, I wonder if the problem is
But what if
Hmm, but what if
Actually, wait.
OK, I'm going to look at this from a different angle
But what if the issue is that

If you're reading those prominently in the thinking it's an indication that the model is lost in a loop of indecision.

In another (better) scenario:

Could you further setup the privacy and terms to always attempt to show the translation otherwise use the default but for admin it should show the editor for the article translation of the selected language being empty if not defined and where saving it upserts it to the articles translations appropriately, without any show translation button in particular for the user but rather a preference for the official translation when defined?

The difference is in the research space of the code, if it seems obvious to you that there's nothing left to "guesswork" and you wouldn't have to debug it with breakpoints or logs, the GLM 5.2 model will spit out a beautiful solution that would have seemed more appropriately handled by Claude.

Whereas using a lower-tier model such as SWE 1.6 can be practical in getting those 20-30 line patches figured out in advance, and wherein Claude can get a major feature laid out in full simplicity given the good constrains are specified with some explicit details within the general idea, there's some use cases for GLM 5.2 where you can get some of those +1000 lines bloat through the same way it's figured out in advance like with a lower-tier model, slowly but surely.

In the following prompt example, the GLM 5.2 capabilities are at their most optimal in cost/benefit ratio:

Can you add a Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy link in the footer visible only for admin when it's empty, and which opens an edit article with the slugs terms-conditions and privacy-policy where it's purposefully excluded from the main feed, and where the links show up to public if it isn't empty and published, where the links show the article-card in a modal upon being clicked?

With a well designed AGENTS.md, the model can find its way through the design and the back-end, to create API endpoints and link components in full consistency with the broader architecture, giving a minimal but well-oriented request a lot of leverage over the project.

Those different experiences of the models give a sense that there's a sweet spot for each of them in terms of letting them guide the project vs giving specific indications to guide the model. As always, it's best to try and perceive the trade-offs with more agent coding experience to weigh the advantages of each, and when to escape a loop of indecision.