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

281–290 of 636 posts

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

#281

Post by tdb7893 »

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?

If those tools are writing the code then in general I do expect that to be included in the PR! Through my whole career I've seen PRs where people noted that code that was generated (people have been generating code since long before LLMs). It's useful context unless you've gone over the generated code and understand it and it is the same quality as if you wrote it yourself (which in my experience is the case where it's obvious boilerplate or the generated section is small).

Needing to flag nontrivial code as generated was standard practice for my whole career.

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

#282

Post by paradox460 »

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?

I've heard of employers requiring people to do it for all code written with even a whiff of it

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

#283

Post by jaxn »

noman-land wrote: post #207
CharlieDigital wrote: post #38

Earlier 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.

This isn't just great advice ⸻ it's terrific advice. I'd love to delve a little deeper.

I didn't even know there was a "three em dash". Bravo.

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

#284

Post by electriclove »

ChicagoDave wrote: post #278

Meanwhile Claude Code is still awesome. I don’t see my self switching to OpenAI (seriously bad mgmt and possibly the first domino to fall if there is a correction) or Gemini (Google ethics cough cough).

I switched to Codex out of frustration with Claude Code and it has been surprisingly similar for my web and mobile coding needs

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

#285

Post by jaxn »

bandrami wrote: post #279
Pxtl wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

But copilot code review agent is pretty good at catching when code and comments diverge (even in unrelated documentation files).

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

#286

Post by skydhash »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #122
skydhash wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really about design, but technical reasons why this solution came to be when it’s not that obvious. It’s not often needed. And when it does, it usually fits in a short paragraph.

> technical reasons why this solution came to be What you're describing here is a design. The most important parts of a design are the decisions and their reasoning. e.g. "we decided on tool/library pattern X over tool/library/pattern Y because Z" – that is a design, usually discussed outside (and before) a commit message. You discuss these decisions with others, document the discussion and decision, and then you hav…

Here is an example

https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/commit/?id=407b1e4980189252fade...

You can find more example there

https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/log/?showmsg=1

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

#287

Post by drzaiusx11 »

panny wrote: post #256
graemep wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Thaler ruling addresses a different point. The ruling says that the LLM cannot be the author. It does not say that the human being using the LLM cannot be the author. The ruling was very clear that it did not address whether a human being was the copyright holder because Thaler waived that argument. the position with a monkey using your camera is similar, and you may or may not hold the copyright depending on wha…

Guidance on AI is unambiguous. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ AI generated code has no copyright. And if it DID somehow have copyright, it wouldn't be yours. It would belong to the code it was "trained" on. The code it algorithmically copied. You're trying to have your cake, and eat it too. You could maybe claim your prompts are copyrighted, but that's not what leaked. The AI generated code leaked.

The linked document labeled "Part 2: Copyrightability", section V. "Conclusions" states the following:

> the Copyright Office concludes that existing legal doctrines are adequate and appropriate to resolve questions of copyrightability. Copyright law has long adapted to new technology and can enable case-by- case determinations as to whether AI-generated outputs reflect sufficient human contribution to warrant copyright protection. As described above, in many circumstances these outputs will be copyrightable in whole or in part—where AI is used as a tool, and where a human has been able to determine the expressive elements they contain. Prompts alone, however, at this stage are unlikely to satisfy those requirements.

So the TL;DR basically implies pure slop within the current guidelines outlined in conclusions is NOT copyrightable. However collaboration with an AI copyrightability is determined on a case by case basis. I will preface this all with the standard IANAL, I could be wrong etc, but with the concluding language using "unlikely" copyrightable for slop it sounds less cut and dry than you imply.

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

#289

Post by skydhash »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #168
shakna wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you'd disagree with style that Linux uses for their commits? Random example: Provide a new syscall which has the only purpose to yield the CPU after the kernel granted a time slice extension. sched_yield() is not suitable for that because it unconditionally schedules, but the end of the time slice extension is not required to schedule when the task was already preempted. This also allows to have a strict check for…

I think my post makes it pretty clear that I would. If you want, I could cite several examples of organizations which use the method I described, so you can weigh it against the one example you provided, and get the full picture. In your example, for example, where was the issue tracked before the code was written? The format you linked makes it difficult to get the history of the issue. Let me ask you this: suppose…

Everyone has its own system although companies do tend to codify it with a project manager. I used TODO.txt inside the repo. an org file, Things.app, a stack of papers, and a whiteboard. But once a task is done, I can summarize the context in a paragraph or two. That’s what I put in the commits.

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

#290

Post by EnigmaCurry »

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?

Sent from my Ipad
Post reply on HN