Today we’re rolling out a new update to /usage to help you understand your usage with Claude Code, this was informed by a number of conversations with customers. What came up again and again in these calls is that there is a lot of variance in how you might manage your sessions, especially with our new update to 1 million context in Claude Code. Do you only use one session or two sessions that you keep open in a terminal? Do you start a new session with every prompt? When do you use compact, rewind or subagents? What causes a bad compact? There’s a surprising amount of detail here that can really shape your experience with Claude Code and almost all of it comes from managing your context window. A Quick Primer on Context, Compaction & Context Rot The context window is everything the model can "see" at once when generating its next response. It includes your system prompt, the conversation so far, every tool call and its output, and every file that's been read. Claude Code has a context window of one million tokens. Unfortunately using context has a slight cost, which is often called context rot. Context rot is the observation that model performance degrades as context grows because attention gets spread across more tokens, and older, irrelevant content starts to distract from the current task. Context windows are a hard cutoff, so when you’re nearing the end of the context window, you will need to summarize the task you’ve been working on into a smaller description and continue the work in a new context window, we call this compaction. You can also trigger compaction yourself. Every Turn Is a Branching Point Say you've just asked Claude to do something and it's finished, you’ve now got some information in your context (tool calls, tool outputs, your instructions) and you have a surprising number of options for what to do next: Continue — send another message in the same session /rewind (esc esc) — jump back to a previous message and try again from there /clear — start a new session, usually with a brief you've distilled from what you just learned Compact — summarize the session so far and keep going on top of the summary Subagents — delegate the next chunk of work to an agent with its own clean context, and only pull its result back in While the most natural is just to continue, the other four options exist to help manage your context. When to Start a New Session When do you keep a long running session vs starting a new one? Our general rule of thumb is when you start a new task, you should also start a new session. 1M context windows do mean that you can now do longer tasks more reliably, for example to have it build a full-stack app from scratch. Sometimes you may do related tasks where some of the context is still necessary, but not all. For example, writing the documentation for a feature you just implemented. While you could start a new session, Claude would have to reread the files that you just implemented, which would be slower and more expensive. Rewinding Instead of Correcting If I had to pick one habit that signals good context management, it’s rewind. In Claude Code, double-tapping Esc(or running /rewind) lets you jump back to any previous message and re-prompt from there. The messages after that point are dropped from the context. Rewind is often the better approach to correction. For example, Claude reads five files, tries an approach, and it doesn't work. Your instinct may be to type "that didn't work, try X instead." but the better move is to rewind to just after the file reads, and re-prompt with what you learned. "Don't use approach A, the foo module doesn't expose that — go straight to B." You can also use “summarize from here” to have Claude summarize its learnings and create a handoff message, kind of like a message to the previous iteration of Claude from its future self that tried something and it didn’t work. Compacting vs. Fresh Sessions Once a session gets long, you have two ways to shed weight: /compact or /clear (and start fresh). They feel similar but behave very differently. Compact asks the model to summarize the conversation so far, then replaces the history with that summary. It's lossy, you're trusting Claude to decide what mattered, but you didn't have to write anything yourself and Claude might be more thorough in including important learnings or files. You can also steer it by passing instructions (/compact focus on the auth refactor, drop the test debugging). With /clear you write down what matters ("we're refactoring the auth middleware, the constraint is X, the files that matter are A and B, we've ruled out approach Y") and start clean. It's more work, but the resulting context is what you decided was relevant. What Causes a Bad Compact? If you run a lot of long running sessions, you might have noticed times in which compacting might be particularly bad. In this case we’ve often found that bad compacts can happen when the model can’t predict the directi