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

161–170 of 636 posts

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

#161

Post by manbitesdog »

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?

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

#162

Post by jrflowers »

I like that if they decide that your usage looks like distillation it just becomes useless, because there’s no way for the end user to distinguish between it just being sort of crappy or sabotaged intentionally. That’s a cool thing to pay for

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

#163

Post by schappim »

otterley wrote: post #41
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 would have expected people (maybe a small minority, but that includes myself) to have already instructed Claude to do this. It’s a trivial instruction to add to your CLAUDE.md file.

I guess our system prompt didn't work. If folks are having to add it manually into their own Claude.md files...

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

#164

Post by zingar »

I wrote this an hour ago and it seems that Claude might not understand it as frustration:

> change the code!!!! The previous comment was NOT ABOUT THE DESCRIPTION!!!!!!! Add to the {implementation}!!!!! This IS controlled BY CODE. *YOU* _MUST_ CHANGE THE CODE!!!!!!!!!!!

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

#165

Post by Galanwe »

MadsRC wrote: post #104
stavros wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm referring to this signing bit: https://alex000kim.com/posts/2026-03-31-claude-code-source-l... Ah, it seems that Bun itself signs the code. I don't understand how this can't be spoofed.

Ah yes, the API will accept requests that doesn’t include the client attestation (or the fingerprint from src/utils/fingerprint.ts. At least it did a couple of weeks back. They are most likely using these as post-fact indicators and have automation they kicks in after a threshold is reached. Now that the indicators have leaked, they will most likely be rotated.

> Now that the indicators have leaked, they will most likely be rotated.

They can't really do that. Now they have no way to distinguish "this is a user of a non updated Claude code" from "this is a user of a Claude code proxy".

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

#166

Post by jamietanna »

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?

Eh, there are some very good reasons[0] that you would do better to track your usage of LLM derived code (primarily for legal reasons)

[0]: https://www.jvt.me/posts/2026/02/25/llm-attribute/

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

#167

Post by joe_the_user »

CharlieDigital wrote: post #38
causal wrote: post #28

I'm amazed at how much of what my past employers would call trade secrets are just being shipped in the source. Including comments that just plainly state the whole business backstory of certain decisions. It's like they discarded all release harnesses and project tracking and just YOLO'd everything into the codebase itself. Edit: Everyone is responding "comments are good" and I can't tell if any of you actually read…

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.

Hmm, I'm sure if you're getting parent's comment.

I think a big question is whether one wants your agent to know the reason for all the reasons for guidelines you issue or whether you want the agent to just follow the guidelines you issue. Especially, giving an agent the argument for your orders might make the agent think that can question and so not follow those arguments.

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

#168

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

shakna wrote: post #158
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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 you have a task that needs to be done eventually, and you want to write down some ideas for it, but don't want to start coding right now. Where do you put those ideas? How do you link them to that specific task?

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

#169

Post by andoando »

Pxtl wrote: post #133
andoando wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ive seen it say coauthored by claude code on my prs...and I agree I dont want it to do that

Why not? What's wrong with honesty?

I guess Im sometimes dishonest when it suits me

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

#170

Post by otterley »

hajile wrote: post #160
otterley wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an attorney, I know copyright law. (This is not legal advice.) There's nothing about copyright law that says you have to credit an AI coding agent for contributing to your work. The person receiving the code has to perform their due diligence in any case to determine whether the author owns it or has permission from the owner to contribute it.

Can you back this up with legal precedence? To my knowledge, nothing of the sort has been ruled by the courts. Additionally, this raises another big issue. A few years ago, a couple guys used software (what you could argue was a primitive AI) to generated around 70 billion unique pieces of music which amounts to essentially every piece of copyrightable music using standard music scales. Is the fact that they used sof…

You're asking a lot of very good and thoughtful questions, but none are directly related to the immediate issue, which is "do I have to credit the AI model?".

To begin to answer your questions, I would suggest you study the Copyright Office's report (which is also not law, but their guidance for laypeople as written by their staff lawyers) at https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...

Post reply on HN