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

291–300 of 636 posts

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

#291

Post by redanddead »

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…

Idk. This is making leaps. Idc that their tools leaked. I paid 140$ for CC the other day even after getting sometimes not 100% uptime on the lower plan. If anything this leak is most in line with Anthropic's ethical model. They're failing upwards in my opinion

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

#292

Post by redanddead »

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…

their lawyers for the DoD thing are being billed either way, they're putting them to use

Anthropic really needs to embrace it

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

#293

Post by redanddead »

Reason077 wrote: post #50

> "Anti-distillation: injecting fake tools to poison copycats" Plot twist: Chinese competitors end up developing real, useful versions of Claude's fake tools.

Definitely. We can expect zAI, Qwen, Minimax CCs very soon

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

#294

Post by artyom »

I'm still amazed that something as ubiquitous as "daemon mode" is still unreleased.

- Claude Chat: built like it's 1995, put business logic in the button click() handler. Switch to something else in in the UI and a long running process hard stops. Very Visual Basic shovelware.

- Claude Cowork: same but now we're smarter, if you change the current convo we don't stop the underlying long-running process. 21st century FTW!

- Claude Code: like chat, but in the CLI

- Claude Dispatch: an actual mobile client app, not the whole thing bundled together.

- Daemon mode: proper long-running background process, still unreleased.

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

#295

Post by jcgrillo »

sfn42 wrote: post #248
jcgrillo wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comments are great until they diverge from the code. The "no comments, just self-explanatory code" reaction comes from the trauma of having to read hundreds of lines of comments only to discover they have nothing to do with how the code actually works, because over time the code has received updates but the comments haven't. In that case it's better to just have no comments or documentation of any kind--less cognitiv…

This is honestly such a bad argument against comments. I'm gonna note down my reasons for doing things and other information I deem useful, and if some other dipshit 5 years from now when I've moved on comes along and starts changing everything up without keeping the comments up to date that's their problem not mine. There was never anything wrong with my comments, the only thing that's wrong is the dipshit messing t…

> that's their problem not mine

IME unfortunately that's not actually the case. It very much is your problem, as the architect of the original system, unless you can get yourself transferred to a department far, far away. I've never managed that except by leaving the company.

To be clear, I don't believe it should be this way, but sadly unless you work in an uncommonly well run company it usually is.

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

#296

Post by pxc »

ruraljuror wrote: post #269
pxc wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can disclose that you used an LLM in the process of writing code in other ways, though. You can just tell people, you can mention it in the PR, you can mention it in a ticket, etc.

+1. If we’re at an early stage in the agentic curve where we think reading commit messages is going to matter, I don’t want those cluttered with meaningless boilerplate (“co-authored by my tools!”). But at this point i am more curious if git will continue to be the best tool.

I'm only beginning to use "agentic" LLM tools atm because we finally gained access to them at work, and the rest of my team seems really excited about using them.

But for me at least, a tool like Git seems pretty essential for inspecting changes and deciding which to keep, which to reroll, and which to rewrite. (I'm not particularly attached to Git but an interface like Magit and a nice CLI for inspecting and manipulating history seem important to me.)

What are you imagining VCS software doing differently that might play nicer with LLM agents?

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

#297

Post by bogdanoff_2 »

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?

> Should I also co-author my PRs with my linter, intellisense and IDE?

Kinda, yeah. If I automatically apply lint suggestions, I would title my commit "apply lint suggestions".

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

#299

Post by NewsaHackO »

bogdanoff_2 wrote: post #297
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?

> Should I also co-author my PRs with my linter, intellisense and IDE? Kinda, yeah. If I automatically apply lint suggestions, I would title my commit "apply lint suggestions".

Huh? Unless the sole purpose of the commit was to lint code, it would be unnecessary fluff to append the name of the automatically linted tools that ran in a pre-commit hook in every commit.

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

#300

Post by mathgradthrow »

mikkupikku wrote: post #184
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?

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.

I'm not really sure that's any of their business.
Post reply on HN