Live data from Hacker News

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

alex000kim.com

381–390 of 636 posts

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

#381
post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also pretty damn obvious when LLMs write code. Nobody out here commenting every method in perfect punctuation and grammar.

skill issue

Please elaborate, poopmonster! What sort of skills are required to expertly use an LLM?

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

#383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Typo from speech to text, corrected: “I guess Anthropic’s 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

#384
post #248

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…

And then you find out the dipshit that didn't keep the comments up to date was you all along

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

#386
post #384
post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And then you find out the dipshit that didn't keep the comments up to date was you all along

It wasn't.

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

#389
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?

Tools do author commits in my code bases, for example during a release pipeline. If I had commits being made by Claude I would expect that to be recorded too. It isn't for recording a bill of tools, just to help understand a projects evolution.

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

#390

> So I spent my morning reading through the HN comments and leaked source. > This was one of the first things people noticed in the HN thread. > The obvious concern, raised repeatedly in the HN thread > This was the most-discussed finding in the HN thread. > Several people in the HN thread flagged this > Some in the HN thread downplayed the leak when the original HN post is already at the top of the front page...why…

Because it’s very cheap to tell an LLM to write a blogpost based on a HN thread, and apparently the HN community upvotes this as well.
Post reply on HN