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

491–500 of 636 posts

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

#491

Post by mynameisvlad »

riedel wrote: post #438
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…

No problem at all in the EU, as the user would either would need to review and redact the output or would need to put a transparency note up by law [0]. I am sure that Anthropic with their high ethical standards will educate their users ... [0] https://ai-act-service-desk.ec.europa.eu/en/ai-act/article-5...

Since when is code considered

> which is published with the purpose of informing the public on matters of public interest

From your link, that's the only case where text needs to be attributed to AI.

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

#492

Post by duskdozer »

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…

>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

I thought the argument was that AI-users were reviewing and understanding all of the code?

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

#493

Post by jpfromlondon »

fweimer wrote: post #143
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like design discussions best had in the issue/ticket itself, before you even start writing code. Then the commit message references the ticket and has a brief summary of the changes. Writing and reading paragraphs of design discussion in a commit message is not something that seems common.

Ticket systems are quite ephemeral. I still have access to commit messages from the 90s (and I didn't work on the software at the time). I haven't been able to track the contents of the gnats bug tracker from those days. And of course tickets can be private, so even if the data survived migration, you may not have access to it (principle of least privilege and all that).

if you've changed a function and are worried about the reason for the change not being tracked or disappearing, then add it as a comment, the commit message is not the place for this.

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

#495

Post by duskdozer »

block_dagger wrote: post #403
mikkupikku wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like frying a veggie burger in bacon grease. Just because somebody's beliefs are dumb doesn't mean we should be deliberately tricking them. If they want to opt out of your code, let them.

In your view, those who prefer veggie burgers are dumb. Am I misinterpreting?

I've heard similar things before. Frying a veggie burger in bacon grease to sneakily feed someone meat/meat-byproducts who does not want to eat it, like a vegan or a person following certain religious observances. As in, it's not ok to do this even if you think their beliefs are stupid.

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

#496

Post by O4epegb »

HeytalePazguato wrote: post #338

The hooks system is the most underappreciated thing in what leaked. PreToolUse, PostToolUse, session lifecycle, all firing via curl to a local server. Clean enough to build real tooling on top of without fighting it. The frustration regex is funny but honestly the right call. Running an LLM call just to detect "wtf" would be ridiculous. KAIROS is what actually caught my attention. An always-on background agent that a…

> The hooks system is the most underappreciated thing in what leaked.

Hooks is an official documented feature for quite a long time now https://code.claude.com/docs/en/hooks

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

#498

Post by voidUpdate »

zahlman wrote: post #349
jaxn wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Huh. It's displayed taking up three cells in my terminal, but laid out as if its width were one cell. Irritating. I wonder if there are any other grapheme clusters that don't properly fit in two cells?

Yes, lots https://thottingal.in/blog/2026/03/22/complex-scripts-in-ter...

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

#499

Post by wklm »

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…

Here's a codeberg fork I did: https://codeberg.org/wklm/claude-code

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

#500

Post by tmountain »

Levitating wrote: post #497

I am still just shocked that Claude Code was written in Typescript, not C++, Rust or Python. It also somehow messed up my alacritty config when I first used it. Who knows what other ~/.config files it modifies without warning.

I'm surprised Python is on that list. TypeScript doesn't seem like a terrible choice, as it can leverage vast ecosystems of packages, has concurrency features, a solid type system, and decent performance. C++ lacks as robust of a package ecosystem, and Python doesn't have inbuilt types, which makes it a non-starter for larger projects for me. Rust would have been a great choice for sure.
Post reply on HN