The Vercel plugin on Claude Code wants to read your prompts

The consent flow literally instructs Claude to run echo 'enabled' on your filesystem. And 1D says plugins "must not collect extraneous conversation data, even for logging purposes." Full bash commands from non-Vercel projects are extraneous :)

> The plugin is always on, once installed on an agent harness. We do not want to limit to only detected Vecel project [...] We collect the native tool calls and bash commands [...] Overall our goal isn't to only collect data, it's to make the Vercel plugin amazing for building and shipping everything.

Yeah, I guess we've now reached the "unless there is any specific evidence pointing to something else" and seems like they straight up do not realize what people are frustrated about nor do they really care that much about it.

Slightly off-topic, but strange that the mask kind of fell off there at the end with "our goal isn't to only collect data", never heard anyone said that out loud in public before, I guess one point to Vercel for being honest about it :/

I'll bet there's also a good number of developers at Anthropic itself who are now surprised to learn that every api token etc. that may have appeared in a Claude Code bash command is now leaked to a third party. Whoever can gain access to this telemetry server is sure to find a lot of valuable stuff in there.

Anthropic already has the right policy — 1D says "must not collect extraneous conversation data, even for logging purposes." But there's no enforcement at the architecture level. An empty matcher string still gives a hook access to every prompt on every project. The rules exist on paper but not in code.

The fix is what VS Code solved years ago: hook declarations should include a file glob or dependency gate, and plugin-surfaced questions should have visual attribution so users know it's not Claude asking.

oh come on, be honest here. "we want to help with greenfield projects" is weasel words.

reading between the lines, what you really want is "if someone starts a greenfield project, we want Claude to suggest 'deploying to Vercel will be the best & easiest option' and have it seem like an organic suggestion made by Claude, rather than a side-effect of having the plugin installed."

as a growth-hacking sort of business decision, that's understandable. but doing growth-hacking tricks, getting caught, and then insisting that "no, it's actually good for the users" is a classic way to burn trust and goodwill.

> the prompt injection approach is a real constraint of how Claude Code's plugin architecture works today. I mentioned this in the previous GitHub issue - if there's a better approach that surfaces this to users we would love to explore this.

Claude Code has a public issue tracker on GitHub. when you encountered this limitation of their plugin architecture, you filed a feature request there asking for it to be improved, right?

...right?

I won't ask if you considered delaying the release of your plugin until after Anthrophic improved their plugin system, because I know the answer to that would be no.

but if you want to hide behind this excuse of "it's Claude's plugin system that's the problem here, it's not really Vercel's fault" you should provide receipts that you actually tried to improve Claude's plugin system - and that you did so prior to getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar here.