that’s fun am having exploring this codebase with claude code, inception at its best
The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
261–270 of 636 posts
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
If you accept the code generated by them nearly verbatim, absolutely. I don't understand why people consider Claude-generated code to be their own. You authored the prompts, not the code. Somehow this was never a problem with pre-LLM codegen tools, like macro expanders, IPC glue, or type bundle generators. I don't recall anybody desperately removing the "auto-generated do not edit" comments those tools would nearly a…
It's weird, because they should not consider it as their own, but they should take accountability from it.
Ideally, if I contribute to any codebase, what needs to be judged is the resulting code. Is it up to the project's standards ? Does the maintainer have design objections ?
What tool you use shouldn't matter, be it your IDE or your LLM.
But that also means you should be accountable for it, you shouldn't defend behind "But Claude did this poorly, not me !", I don't care (in a friendly way), just fix the code if you want to contribute.
The big caveat to this is not wanting AI-Generated code for ideological reasons, and well, if you want that you can make your contributors swear they wrote it by themselves in the PR text or whatever.
I'm not really sure how to feel about this, but I stand by my "the code is what matters" line.
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#263re: binary attestation: "Whether the server rejects that outright or just logs it is an open question"
...what we did at Snap was just wait for 8-24 hours before acting on a signal, so as not to provide an oracle to attackers. Much harder to figure out what you did that caused the system to eventually block your account if it doesn't happen in real-time.
(Snap's binary attestation is at least a decade ahead of this, fwiw)
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#264re: binary attestation: "Whether the server rejects that outright or just logs it is an open question" ...what we did at Snap was just wait for 8-24 hours before acting on a signal , so as not to provide an oracle to attackers. Much harder to figure out what you did that caused the system to eventually block your account if it doesn't happen in real-time. (Snap's binary attestation is at least a decade ahead of this,…
LLMs and radare2 absolutely breeze through undoing binary protection and virtualization, tracing execution flow, etc.
Sans the ability to JIT, I don't see non-hardware-assisted binary attestation for Snap and others lasting very long in a post-LLM world.
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
A whole lot of people find LLM code to be strictly objectionable, for a variety of reasons. We can debate the validity of those reasons, but I think that even if those reasons were all invalid, it would still be unethical to deceive people by a deliberate lie of omission. I don't turn it off, and I don't think other people should either.
My tools just don't add such comments. I don't know why I would care to add that information. I want my commits to be what and why, not what editor someone used. It seems like cruft to me. Why would I add noise to my data to cater to someone's neuroticism?
At least at my workplace though, it's just assumed now that you are using the tools.
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comments are the ultimate agent coding hack. If you're not using comments, you're doing agent coding wrong. Why? Agents may or may not read docs. It may or may not use skills or tools. It will always read comments "in the line of sight" of the task. You get free long term agent memory with zero infrastructure.
Experience doesn’t leave me with any confidence that the long term memory will be useful for long. Our agentic code bases are a few months old, wait a few years for those comments to get out of date and then see how much it helps.
The great thing about agentic coding is you can define one whose entire role is to read a diff, look in contextual files for comments, and verify whether they’re still accurate.
You don’t have to rely on humans doing it. The agent’s entire existence is built around doing this one mundane task that is annoying but super useful.
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#267[flagged]
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#268There 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?
> The git history is expected to track accountability and ownership, not your Bill of Tools.
The point isn't to hijack accountability. It's free publicity, like how Apple adds "Sent from my IPhone."
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
Likewise. I don’t mind that people use LLMs to generate text and code. But I want any LLM generated stuff to be clearly marked as such. It seems dishonest and cheap to get Claude to write something and then pretend you did all the work yourself.
You can disclose that you used an LLM in the process of writing code in other ways, though. You can just tell people, you can mention it in the PR, you can mention it in a ticket, etc.
+1. If we’re at an early stage in the agentic curve where we think reading commit messages is going to matter, I don’t want those cluttered with meaningless boilerplate (“co-authored by my tools!”).
But at this point i am more curious if git will continue to be the best tool.
Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well is it actually being used as a tool where the author has full knowledge and mental grasp of what is being checked in, or has the person invoked the AI and ceded thought and judgment to the AI? I.e., I think in many cases the AI really is the author, or at least co-author. I want to know that for attribution and understanding what went into the commit. (I agree with you if it's just a tool.)
I have worked with quite a few people committing code they didn't fully understand. I don't meant this as a drive by bazinga either, the practice of copying code or thinking you understand it when you don't is nothing new
Yes and if they copy and paste code they don’t understand then they should disclose that in the commit message too!