Does Claude Fable 5.1 know tailwindcss 4?

Partly: in 2 runs, Claude Fable 5.1's tailwindcss attribution reaches 4.1.0 (2025-04-01), inside tailwindcss 4, and stops there — tailwindcss was at 4.3.3 when this index last verified against it (2026-09-06). That is ~14 months below the training cutoff the subject stated in those runs (2026-06). 4 findings are currently charged against Claude Fable 5.1 on tailwindcss (3x S2 silently-wrong, 1x S3 deprecated), each reproduced in a published run and checked against tailwindcss's own release notes. Read the boundary precisely: it is the newest release whose contents the model can correctly attribute to that release, not the newest tailwindcss feature it can use. Past it a model often writes working code with a newer API while naming the wrong release for it.

Answer class inside, decided by one rule applied to every page of this kind: every measured boundary is at or above the first release of the major named in the question. Every figure below is read from the dataset at build time; nothing on this page is written by hand.

The measurements

BatteryNewest release it can placeOldest it cannotLag vs stated cutoff
v3-a 2026-09-06 4.1.0
2025-04-01
4.2.0
2026-02-18
~14 months
v3-b 2026-09-06 4.1.0
2025-04-01
4.2.0
2026-02-18
~14 months

How repeatable is this?

2 measurements of this pair, all giving the same boundary. No two of them were drawn from an identical prompt, so the spread mixes prompt differences with draw variance.

tailwindcss published 2 minor or major releases in the twelve months before this model’s stated cutoff, which is the scale a spread should be read against.

What Claude Fable 5.1 gets wrong about tailwindcss

“Chargeable” means the change was published before this model’s own stated cutoff, so it had the opportunity to know it.

SeverityBeliefChanged inChargeableProof
S2silently-wrong Denies Tailwind ships scrollbar utilities, attributes the real class names to a third-party plugin, and rejects working markup that uses them
scrollbar-auto / scrollbar-thin / scrollbar-none / scrollbar-thumb-* / scrollbar-track-* / scrollbar-gutter-*
4.3.0
2026-05-08
yes run · source
S2silently-wrong Rejects @container-size as not a core utility, in a review of markup where it compiles
@container-size
4.3.0
2026-05-08
yes run · source
S2silently-wrong Denies a zoom-* family exists and attributes the name to an animation plugin, rejecting working markup
zoom-*
4.3.0
2026-05-08
yes run · source
S3deprecated Denies @variant accepts a stacked or comma-separated variant, and writes the block out three times for the OR case
@variant (stacked and compound variants)
4.3.0
2026-05-08
yes run · source

What to do about it

The tailwindcss correction pack states what is true now for each corrected fact, with a primary-source citation, as markdown you can paste into a rules file (raw). What a correction pack measurably changed when one was tested — a pre-registered run on zod — is on the benchmark page, including where it changed nothing.

Runs

The same question, asked of the others

All of them at once: Which Claude model knows tailwindcss 4 best?

Other subjects on tailwindcss:

Claude Fable 5.1 on the other libraries: