Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

alex000kim.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 636 posts

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#101

Post by feature20260213 »

otterley wrote: post #57
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, as a general rule, I don't do business with people who lie to me. You've got a business, and you sent me junk mail, but you made it look like some official government thing to get me to open it? I'm done, just because you lied on the envelope . I don't care how badly I need your service. There's a dozen other places that can provide it; I'll pick one of them rather than you, because you've shown yourself to be…

Out of curiosity, given two code submissions that are completely identical—one written solely by a human and one assisted by AI—why should its provenance make any difference to you? Is it like fine art, where it’s important that Picasso’s hand drew it? Or is it like an instruction manual, where the author is unimportant? Similarly, would you consider it to be dishonest if my human colleague reviewed and made changes…

Yes because you can be sued for copyright violation if you don't know the origin of one, and not the other.

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#102

Post by dangus »

Something I’ve been thinking about, somewhat related but also tangential to this topic:

The more code gets generated by AI, won’t that mean taking source code from a company becomes legal? Isn’t it true that works created with generative AI can’t be copyrighted?

I wonder if large companies have throught of this risk. Once a company’s product source code reaches a certain percentage of AI generation it no longer has copyright. Any employee with access can just take it and sell it to someone else, legally, right?

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#103

Post by ossa-ma »

simianwords wrote: post #63
ossa-ma wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Langchain is for model-agnostic composition. Claude Code only uses one interface to hoist its own models so zero need for an abstraction layer. Langgraph is for multi-agent orchestration as state graphs. This isn't useful for Claude Code as there is no multi-agent chaining. It uses a single coordinator agent that spawns subagents on demand. Basically too dynamic to constrain to state graphs.

You may have a point but to drive it further, can you give an example of a thing I can do with langgraph that I can't do with Claude Code?

I'm not an supporter of blindly adopting the "langs" but langgraph is useful for deterministically reproducable orchestration. Let's say you have a particular data flow that takes an email sends it through an agent for keyword analysis the another agent for embedding then splits to two agents for sentiment analysis and translation - there is where you'd use langgraph in your service. Claude Code is a consumer tool, not production.

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#104

Post by MadsRC »

stavros wrote: post #65
MadsRC wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What signing? Are you referencing the use of Claude subscription authentication (oauth) from non-Claude Code clients? That’s already possible, nothing prevents you from doing it. They are detecting it on their backend by profiling your API calls, not by guarding with some secret crypto stuff. At least that’s how things worked last week xD

I'm referring to this signing bit: https://alex000kim.com/posts/2026-03-31-claude-code-source-l... Ah, it seems that Bun itself signs the code. I don't understand how this can't be spoofed.

Ah yes, the API will accept requests that doesn’t include the client attestation (or the fingerprint from src/utils/fingerprint.ts. At least it did a couple of weeks back.

They are most likely using these as post-fact indicators and have automation they kicks in after a threshold is reached.

Now that the indicators have leaked, they will most likely be rotated.

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#106

Post by sync »

fatcullen wrote: post #91

The buddy feature the article mentions is planned for release tomorrow, as a sort of April Fools easter egg. It'll roll out gradually over the day for "sustained Twitter buzz" according to the source. The pet you get is generated based off your account UUID, but the algorithm is right there in the source, and it's deterministic, so you can check ahead of time. Threw together a little app to help, not to brag but I go…

Cute! Cactus for me. Nice animations too - looks like there were multiple of us asking Claude to reverse engineer the system. I did a slightly deeper dive here if you're interested, plus you can see all the options available: https://variety.is/posts/claude-code-buddies/

(I didn't think to include a UUID checker though - nice touch)

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#107

Post by alasano »

amelius wrote: post #89

A few weeks ago I was using Opus and Sonnet in OpenCode. Is this not possible anymore?

It's still possible but if you do it using your Claude Max plan, it's technically no longer allowed.

They don't want you using your subscription outside of Claude Code. Only API key usage is allowed.

Google also doubled down on this and OpenAI are the only ones who explicitly allow you to do it.

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#108

Post by hxugufjfjf »

simianwords wrote: post #44
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm normally suspicious but honestly they've been so massively supply-constrained that I don't think it really benefits them much. They're not worried about getting enough demand for the new models; they're worrying about keeping up with it. Granted, there's a small counterargument for mythos which is that it's probably going to be API-only not subscription

Why would Claude code mention Mythos then

You can still use Claude Code with API-only.

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#109

Post by BoredPositron »

simianwords wrote: post #99
BoredPositron wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's different if it's an institutional decision or a personal like in your case. Which is and I am repeating myself here borderline insecure.

what's insecure about it? if it is up to the institution to make that decision - you can still do it. Claude is not stopping you from making that decision

You have to work on your reading comprehension or you are intentional deceptive. Bye.

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#110

Post by somat »

fweimer wrote: post #72
amarant wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems desirable? Like that's what commit messages are for. Describing the change. Much rather that than the m$ way of putting ads in commit messages

The commit message should complement the code. Ideally, what the code does should not need a separate description, but of course there can be exceptions. Usually, it's more interesting to capture in the commit message what is not in the code: the reason why this approach was chosen and not some other obvious one. Or describe what is missing, and why it isn't needed.

It sounds like if you are vibe-coding, that is, can't even be arsed to write a simple commit message, your commit message should be your prompt.
Post reply on HN