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

311–320 of 636 posts

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

#311

Post by sysguest »

ndriscoll wrote: post #265
mikkupikku wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

well if I know a specific LLM has certain tendencies (eg. some model is likely to introduce off-by-one errors), I would know what to look for in code-review

I mean, of course I would read most of the code during review, but as a human, I often skip things by mistake

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

#312

Post by deadbabe »

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?

Could be cool if your PRs link back to a blog where you write about your tools.

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

#315

Post by runarberg »

tshaddox wrote: post #247
mikkupikku wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If a whole of people thought that running code through a linter or formatter was objectionable, I'd probably just dismiss their beliefs as invalid rather than adding the linter or formatter as a co-author to every commit.

Linters and formatters are different tools then LLMs. There is a general understanding that linters and formatters don’t alter the behavior of your program. And even still most projects require a particular linter and a formatter to pass before a PR is accepted, and will flag a PR as part of the CI pipeline if a particular linter or a particular formatter fails on the code you wrote. This particular linter and formatter is very likely to be mentioned somewhere in the configuration or at least in the README of the project.

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

#316

Post by blcknight »

Aperocky wrote: post #305
blcknight wrote: post #271

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: Becaus…

wow, it's also not like their code was actually good (though this apply to most enterprise software). To hide a client behind closed source (it's also typescript, so even more baffling) is laughable behavior.

Yea this is the thing that makes no sense to me. Any frontier model can unmiminize minified JS pretty decently. Obviously not everything comes through, comments and such, but I always assumed the reason it wasn't open source was to prevent an endless shitstorm of AI slop PR's, not because they were trying to protect secret sauce.

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

#319

Post by internet101010 »

bottlepalm wrote: post #274
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 subscript…

I just hope it doesn't turn out like n8n. I built a few things, wanted to make changes, looked at the code base, opened the devcontainer, noped out after being mortified by the sheer number of warning and dependency issues, threw away all of my work, uninstalled, didn't think about it again.

Two months later it was CVE after CVE.

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

#320

Post by thechao »

tdb7893 wrote: post #281
manbitesdog wrote: post #161

Earlier 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 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…

You assemble all your machine code using a magnetized needle?
Post reply on HN