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

271–280 of 636 posts

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

#271

Post by blcknight »

My GitHub fork of anthropics/claude-code just got taken down with a DMCA notice lol

It did not have a copy of the leaked code...

Anthropic thinking 1) they can unring this bell, and 2) removing forks from people who have contributed (well, what little you can contribute to their repo), is ridiculous.

---

DMCA: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2026/03/2026-03-3...

GitHub's note at the top says: "Note: Because the reported network that contained the allegedly infringing content was larger than one hundred (100) repositories, and the submitter alleged that all or most of the forks were infringing to the same extent as the parent repository, GitHub processed the takedown notice against the entire network of 8.1K repositories, inclusive of the parent repository."

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

#273

Post by SequoiaHope »

preston-kwei wrote: post #238

I’m more curious how this impacts trust than anything else. In the span of basically a week, they accidentally leaked Mythos, and then now the entire codebase of CC. All while many people are complaining about their usage limits being consumed quickly. Individually, each issue is manageable (Because its exciting looking through leaked code). But together, it starts to feel like a pattern. At some point, I think the q…

Something that has been clear to me in using it, aside from direct claims by the authors, is that Claude is itself vibe coded slop. The number of random errors I get from using various parts of the web UI or CC that should work feels high for such a popular product. But they’re so deep in the vibes that I don’t think they can tell when some path in their web UI is broken. I tried to share a public link to a chat and it asked me to login when opening it on another computer. I tried to download a conversation and it threw an error. When I download markdown output the download succeeds but the UI throws an error. I have tried to control the behavior of Claude Code in tmux using documented flags but I can’t seem to get them to work properly. Agent teams don’t clean up their tmux windows, making the view a mess after they run. Claude code is an amazing product that I love and also it is itself vibe coded slop.

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

#274

Post by bottlepalm »

preston-kwei wrote: post #238

I’m more curious how this impacts trust than anything else. In the span of basically a week, they accidentally leaked Mythos, and then now the entire codebase of CC. All while many people are complaining about their usage limits being consumed quickly. Individually, each issue is manageable (Because its exciting looking through leaked code). But together, it starts to feel like a pattern. At some point, I think the q…

Not much impact, Codex is already open source. The real value is in the model itself and the ability to use it with a subscription. Something you can't do legally with a clone of this code.

The only thing I found interesting about this leak is just how much of a rats nest the code base is. Like it actually feels vibe coded without a shred of intelligent architecture behind it.

Regardless, you can't beat the subscription and model access despite the state of the code base, so I still use Claude Code daily and love it.

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

#275

Post by senfiaj »

> Frustration detection via regex (yes, regex)

/\b(wtf|wth|ffs|omfg|shit(ty|tiest)?|dumbass|horrible|awful| piss(ed|ing)? off|piece of (shit|crap|junk)|what the (fuck|hell)| fucking? (broken|useless|terrible|awful|horrible)|fuck you| screw (this|you)|so frustrating|this sucks|damn it)\b/

Personally, I'm generally polite even towards AI and even when frustrated. I simply point out the its mistakes instead of using emotional words.

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

#276

Post by chaos_emergent »

simianwords wrote: post #117
ossa-ma wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, n…

I see what you mean. Maybe in the cases where the steps are deterministic, it might be worth moving the coordination at the code layer instead of AI layer. What's the value add over doing it with just Python code? I mean you can represent any logic in terms of graphs and states..

Most of the value I’ve gotten out of is has been observability. Graph and DAG workflow abstractions just help OTel structure your LLM logs in a clean hierarchy of spans. I could imagine figuring out a better solution to this than the whole graph abstraction.

Other than that I’m not too sure.

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

#277

Post by GuB-42 »

seertaak wrote: post #182

The irony of an IP scraper on an absolutely breathtaking, epic scale getting its secret sauce "scraped" - because the whole app is vibe coded (and the vibe coders appear to be oblivious to things like code obfuscation cuz move fast!)... And so now the copy cats can ofc claim this is totally not a copy at all, it's actually Opus. No license violation, no siree! It's fucking hilarious is what it is, it's just too much.

The code is obfuscated, but they accidentally shipped the map file, i.e. the key to de-obfuscating it.

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

#279

Post by bandrami »

Pxtl wrote: post #138
KronisLV wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> the code should explain itself. This is a good goal. You should strive to make the code explain itself. To write code that does not need comments. You will fail to reach that goal most of the time. And when you fail to reach that goal, write the dang comments explaining why the code is the way that it is.

But you will also fail to keep the comments and code synchronized, and the comment will at some point no longer describe why the code is doing whatever it does

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

#280

Post by jpollock »

manbitesdog wrote: post #161
mzajc wrote: post #37

There 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?

Yes, it sets the reviewer's expectations around how much effort was spent reviewing the code before it was sent.

I regularly have tool-generated commits. I send them out with a reference to the tool, what the process is, how much it's been reviewed and what the expectation is of the reviewer.

Otherwise, they all assume "human authored" and "human sponsored". Reviewers will then send comments (instead of proposing the fix themselves). When you're wrangling several hundred changes, that becomes unworkable.

Post reply on HN