[deleted]
The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
171–180 of 636 posts
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
?? why doesn't your panic apply to other agents like Codex that don't advertise that the commit was made by an AI by default? strange!
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#173I wrote this an hour ago and it seems that Claude might not understand it as frustration: > change the code!!!! The previous comment was NOT ABOUT THE DESCRIPTION!!!!!!! Add to the {implementation}!!!!! This IS controlled BY CODE. *YOU* _MUST_ CHANGE THE CODE!!!!!!!!!!!
[deleted]
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would have expected people (maybe a small minority, but that includes myself) to have already instructed Claude to do this. It’s a trivial instruction to add to your CLAUDE.md file.
I guess our system prompt didn't work. If folks are having to add it manually into their own Claude.md files...
My mistake - it was the configuration setting that did it. Nevertheless, you can control many other aspects of its behavior by tuning the CLAUDE.md prompt.
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#175There are now several comments that (incorrectly?) interpret the undercover mode as only hiding internal information. Excerpts from the actual prompt[0]: NEVER include in commit messages or PR descriptions: - The phrase "Claude Code" or any mention that you are an AI - Co-Authored-By lines or any other attribution BAD (never write these): - 1-shotted by claude-opus-4-6 - Generated with Claude Code - Co-Authored-By: C…
The code has a stated goal of avoiding leaks, but then the actual implementation becomes broader than that. I see two possible explanations:
* The authors made the code very broad to improve its ability to achieve the stated goal
* The authors have an unstated goal
I think it's healthy to be skeptical but what I'm seeing is that the skeptics are pushing the boundaries of what's actually in the source. For example, you say "says on the tin" that it "pretends to be human" but it simply does not say that on the tin. It does say "Write commit messages as a human developer would" which is not the same thing as "Try to trick people into believing you're human." To convince people of your skepticism, it's best to stick to the facts.
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#176I wrote this an hour ago and it seems that Claude might not understand it as frustration: > change the code!!!! The previous comment was NOT ABOUT THE DESCRIPTION!!!!!!! Add to the {implementation}!!!!! This IS controlled BY CODE. *YOU* _MUST_ CHANGE THE CODE!!!!!!!!!!!
It's like talking to an intern.
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#177I'm amazed at how much of what my past employers would call trade secrets are just being shipped in the source. Including comments that just plainly state the whole business backstory of certain decisions. It's like they discarded all release harnesses and project tracking and just YOLO'd everything into the codebase itself. Edit: Everyone is responding "comments are good" and I can't tell if any of you actually read…
Exactly the type of comment Claude Code would write
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comments are great for developers. I like having as much design in the repo directly. If not in the code, then in a markdown in the repo.
Meanwhile, some colleagues: "Code should have as little comments as possible, the code should explain itself." (conceptually not wholly wrong, but it can only explain HOW not WHY and even then often insufficiently) all while having barebones/empty README.md files more often than not. Fun times.
Comments are great until they diverge from the code. The "no comments, just self-explanatory code" reaction comes from the trauma of having to read hundreds of lines of comments only to discover they have nothing to do with how the code actually works, because over time the code has received updates but the comments haven't. In that case it's better to just have no comments or documentation of any kind--less cognitive overhead. This is a symptom of broken culture, but the breakage is the same kind that has managers salivating over LLM vibeslop. So I totally get where your colleagues might be coming from. Working within the confines of how things actually are it could be totally reasonable.
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#179There are now several comments that (incorrectly?) interpret the undercover mode as only hiding internal information. Excerpts from the actual prompt[0]: NEVER include in commit messages or PR descriptions: - The phrase "Claude Code" or any mention that you are an AI - Co-Authored-By lines or any other attribution BAD (never write these): - 1-shotted by claude-opus-4-6 - Generated with Claude Code - Co-Authored-By: C…
I cringe every time I see Claude trying to co-author a commit. The git history is expected to track accountability and ownership, not your Bill of Tools. Should I also co-author my PRs with my linter, intellisense and IDE?
Sent from my iPhone
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#180Can fully AI‑generated code be copyrightable? Is there evidence that the leaked code was AI-generated?