[HN Gopher] Claude Code now supports hooks
___________________________________________________________________
Claude Code now supports hooks
Author : ramoz
Score : 348 points
Date : 2025-07-01 00:01 UTC (23 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (docs.anthropic.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (docs.anthropic.com)
| ramoz wrote:
| Really excited to see this implemented.
|
| Hooks will be important for "context engineering" and runtime
| verification of an agent's performance. This extends to things
| such as enterprise compliance and oversight of agentic behavior.
|
| Nice of Anthropic to have supported the idea of this feature from
| a github issue submission: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-
| code/issues/712
| chisleu wrote:
| It is indeed. I don't use Claude Code. I use Cline which is a
| VS Code extension (cline.bot).
|
| This is a pretty killer feature that I would expect to find in
| all the coding agents soon.
| wilde wrote:
| This is nice but I really wish they'd just let me fork the damn
| thing already.
| petethepig wrote:
| Would love to see this in Cursor. My workaround right now is
| using a bunch of rules that sort of work some of the time.
| ed_mercer wrote:
| As an ex-Cursor user myself, is there any reason that you're
| still using it? Genuinely curious.
| porker wrote:
| That tab autocomplete and predicting what I'm going to edit
| next is the best I've found.
|
| The rest I can take or leave (plenty of good or better
| alternatives)
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Claude Code has Cursor integration you can use both
| jerrygoyal wrote:
| I've been using cursor for last 1 year but haven't tried
| Claude Code, Do you think it has gotten better?
| myflash13 wrote:
| Yes, I abandoned Cursor recently and went back to Claude
| Code. Two main reasons: 1. The "plan mode" for Claude makes
| it execute complex tasks much more reliably. It
| automatically keeps track of todos and completes them. With
| Cursor I'm constantly fighting with it. 2. I can now use my
| IDE of choice (JetBrains) rather than a poor fork of VS
| Code. 3. Daily usage limits now included in the monthly
| $20/month Claude Pro plan seems to be enough for my daily
| needs. No extra costs.
| matltc wrote:
| I used GitHub copilot in my vscode setup. Claude Code is
| its agent mode on steroids: highly configurable, seems to
| have much larger context window, can write "memories", has
| hooks now. Highly recommend trying it out.
|
| The time it saved me in first few hours of use easily made
| the monthly fee worthwhile. I did hit a limit near the
| four-hour mark (resets every five hours for us Pro
| subscribers), but just went and reviewed the ~1700 lines it
| added in that time and cleaned up the config files (updated
| todos etc)
| Aeolun wrote:
| Cursor is still the best when you don't have access to a
| Claude subscription.
| am17an wrote:
| You get CC when you sign up for their $20 plan also.
| vl wrote:
| Without Opus (larger model), for $20 you get only Sonnet.
| $100 and $200 plans have Opus.
| bigfudge wrote:
| 100$ gets you very little opus
| Aeolun wrote:
| True, but if the limits are anything like Opus on the
| $100 plan you won't get much use out of it :)
| nxobject wrote:
| To be frank? I can't justify paying for a single-purpose LLM
| service subscription: Cursor has have a 1-year free
| educational plan, and for general-purpose multimodal
| reasoning model work (e.g. OCR, general knowledge reference,
| math computations, prose processing), I already have a
| ChatGPT Plus subscription. It's the streaming service dilemma
| all over again.
| shmoogy wrote:
| I was using it for o3 when sonnet is unable to successfully
| implement something - but I use ZenMCP now.
|
| I still feel like I can review diffs more efficiently in an
| ide, but I'm pretty much just mosh-ing into my server and
| have a few tmux windows going and feel I'm starting to get a
| bit more efficient.
|
| Still considering the Claude max 20x plan to just use opus
| 100% of the time though
| nikcub wrote:
| Cursor has the best tab completion model. I use it together
| with Claude Code.
|
| $20 Cursor Pro plan and $200 MAX Claude Code plan really is a
| great great pairing.
| artursapek wrote:
| adding a hook to have it push to prod every time baby
| apwell23 wrote:
| you can just tell it do that or in your claude.md. don't need
| hooks
| thelittleone wrote:
| In some cases cc misses rules in CLAUDE.md.
| ramoz wrote:
| In many cases.
| apwell23 wrote:
| so its back to hand coding stuff again.
|
| They are going to slowly add "features" that brings
| handcoding back till its like 100% handcoding again.
| ramoz wrote:
| This doesn't come without consideration. You can see I
| mention this in the original feature request.
|
| Yes - it's fine to think of it as handholding (or
| handcoding). These model providers cannot be responsible
| for ultimate alignment with their users. Today, they can
| at best enable integration so a user, or business, can
| express and ensure their own alignment at runtime.
|
| The nature of these systems already requires human
| symbiosis. This is nothing more than a new integration
| point. Will empower agents beyond today's capabilities,
| increase adoption.
| thelittleone wrote:
| This also:
|
| 1) Assign coding task via prompt 2) Hook: Write test for prompt
| proves 3) Write code 4) Hook: Test code 5) Code passes ->
| Commit 6) Else go to 3.
| bgwalter wrote:
| We have to do this, otherwise China wins the "AI" race!
| nojs wrote:
| Exit Code 2 Behavior PreToolUse - Blocks the tool call,
| shows error to Claude
|
| This is great, it means you can set up complex concrete rules
| about commands CC is allowed to run (and with what arguments),
| rather than trying to coax these via CLAUDE.md.
|
| E.g. you can allow docker compose exec django
| python manage.py test
|
| but prevent docker compose exec django python
| manage.py makemigrations
| rco8786 wrote:
| You can already do this in .Claude/settings.json
| nojs wrote:
| Ah you're right, but for more complex logic it's useful to be
| able to run it through a custom script
| paulhodge wrote:
| That's limited to simple string matching with `*` so it can't
| handle anything complex.
| brynary wrote:
| This closes a big feature gap. One thing that may not be obvious
| is that because of the way Claude Code generates commits, regular
| Git hooks won't work. (At least, in most configurations.)
|
| We've been using CLAUDE.md instructions to tell Claude to auto-
| format code with the Qlty CLI (https://github.com/qltysh/qlty)
| but Claude a bit hit and miss in following them. The determinism
| here is a win.
|
| It looks like the events that can be hooked are somewhat limited
| to start, and I wonder if they will make it easy to hook Git
| commit and Git push.
| alfons_foobar wrote:
| Why is it that regular git hooks do not work with claude code?
| brynary wrote:
| When using Claude Code cloud, in order to create signed
| commits, Claude uses the GitHub API to create commits instead
| of the git CLI
| ramoz wrote:
| Wdym Claude Code cloud? Like in a cloud env?
| alfons_foobar wrote:
| Huh, I had not heard of claude code cloud before.
|
| (Also almost swallowed my tongue saying that out loud)
| BonoboIO wrote:
| Husky and lint-staged worked for me. Pre Commit Hooks did not
| work for me.
| symbolicAGI wrote:
| FYI.
|
| Claude loves Java.
|
| I never have to reformat. It picks up my indentation
| preferences immediately and obeys my style guide flawlessly.
| When I ask it to perfect my JavaDoc it is awesome.
|
| Must be a ton of fabulous enterprise Java in the training set.
| Implicated wrote:
| This is pretty much my experience with PHP/Laravel (on modern
| versions, 11/12, on legacy projects it has a hard time
| "remembering" it needs to use different syntax/methods to do
| things)
| bionhoward wrote:
| Given the Anthropic legal terms forbid competing with them, what
| are we actually allowed to do with this? Seems confusing what is
| allowed.
|
| No machine learning work? That would compete.
|
| No writing stuff I would train AI on. Except I own the stuff it
| writes, but I can't use it.
|
| Can we build websites with it? What websites don't compete with
| Anthropic?
|
| Terminal games? No, Claude code is a terminal game, if you make a
| terminal game it competes with Claude?
|
| Can their "trust and safety team" humans read everyone's stuff
| just to check if we're competing with LLMs (funny joke) and steal
| business ideas and use them at Anthropic?
|
| Feels like the dirty secret of AI services is, every possible use
| case violates the terms, and we just have to accept we're using
| something their legal team told us not to use? How is that
| logically consistent? Any safety concerns? This doesn't seem like
| a law Asimov would appreciate.
|
| It would be cool if the set of allowed use cases wasn't empty.
| That might make Anthropic seem more _intelligent_
| nerdsniper wrote:
| Would you argue that Cursor (valued at $10B) is breaking
| Anthropic's terms by making an IDE that competes with their
| Canvas feature?
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Is Cursor using Claude code to build? Or they just allow it
| to plug into Claude?
| moralestapia wrote:
| Yes.
| varenc wrote:
| Cursor isn't building models trained with the outputs of
| Anthropic models (I think). That's what the ToS is
| forbidding.
| bionhoward wrote:
| That's what everyone acts like the ToS forbids, but the
| language of the ToS as written is much more (infinitely)
| broad
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Oh come on, your CRUD app is not competing with an LLMaaS
| moralestapia wrote:
| Oh come on, understand how contracts work before posting a
| comment like this one.
| paulsutter wrote:
| You're only competing with them if you're doing something they
| consider competitive. OpenAI is competitive, you are not
| ethan_smith wrote:
| Anthropic's terms typically restrict training competing AI
| models with their outputs, not building standard applications
| or websites that simply use their API as a tool.
| _flux wrote:
| The TOS says (https://www.anthropic.com/legal/consumer-
| terms):
|
| You may not access or use, or help another person to access
| or use, our Services in the following ways:
|
| 2. To develop any products or services that compete with our
| Services, including to develop or train any artificial
| intelligence or machine learning algorithms or models or
| resell the Services.
|
| Let's say you've used Anthropic's model to generate open
| source software and then some 3rd party trains their model on
| that. Have you now helped another person to use their service
| in a way that violates the terms?
|
| I suppose that's pretty far-fetched, though, unless you have
| some interaction with the party doing the training. Sometimes
| you might, though: perhaps some company provides services to
| train a model on exactly your code base, and then provide
| similar service as Anthropic does for your code base, thus
| being in direct competition of Antropic as well.
| bionhoward wrote:
| it reads, "competing products or services" -- not "training
| competing AI models" with their outputs
|
| Also, who the fuck wants a codebase they can't train models
| on
| parhamn wrote:
| This needs a way to match directories for changes in monorepos.
| E.g. run this linter only if there were changes in this
| directory.
| ramoz wrote:
| An abstraction via a script should work, right? They document
| that it pipes the JSON data to your command's stdin,
| ```lint-monorepo.sh # read that data
| json_input=$(cat) # do some parsing here with jq,
| get the file path (file_path) if [$file_path" ==
| "$dir1"*] run lint_for_dir1 ```
| brynary wrote:
| This can be implemented at the line level if the linter is Git
| aware
| dcre wrote:
| Whatever you run in the hook can check whatever conditions you
| want.
| tinodb wrote:
| Set up pre-commit and call that from a hook? That's what we
| have
| carraes wrote:
| So, form my limited understanding, this doesn't take up context,
| it's something auto where you can configure per tool use, and not
| MCP that Claude decides "when" to run it?!
| AdieuToLogic wrote:
| So many people yearn for LLM's to be like the Star Trek ship
| computer, which when asked a question unconditionally provides a
| response relevant and correct, needing no verification.
|
| A better analogy is LLM's are closer to the "universal
| translator" with an occasional interaction similar to[0]:
| Black Knight: None shall pass. King Arthur: What?
| Black Knight: None shall pass! King Arthur: I have no
| quarrel with you good Sir Knight, But I must cross this bridge.
| Black Knight: Then you shall die. King Arthur: I command
| you, as King of the Britons, to stand aside! Black Knight:
| I move for no man. King Arthur: So be it! [they fight
| until Arthur cuts off the Black Knight's left arm] King
| Arthur: Now, stand aside, worthy adversary. Black Knight:
| 'Tis but a scratch. King Arthur: A scratch? Your arm's off!
| Black Knight: No, it isn't. King Arthur: Well, what's that
| then? Black Knight: I've had worse.
|
| 0 -
| https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Monty_Python_and_the_Holy_Grai...
| bearjaws wrote:
| Claude Code has basically grown to dominate my initial coding
| workflow.
|
| I was using the API and passed $50 easily, so I upgraded to the
| $100 a month plan and have already reached $100 in usage.
|
| I've been working on a large project, with 3 different repos
| (frontend, backend, legacy backend) and I just have all 3 of them
| in one directory now with claude code.
|
| Wrote some quick instructions about how it was setup, its worked
| very well. If I am feeling brave I can have multiple claude codes
| running in different terminals, each working on one piece, but
| Opus tends to do better working across all 3 repos with all of
| the required context.
|
| Still have to audit every change, commit often, but it works
| great 90% of the time.
|
| Opus-4 feels like what OAI was trying to hype up for the better
| part of 6 months before releasing 4.5
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| You can't use it across three repos like a workspace in Xcode?
| nikita2206 wrote:
| It is all file based, so yes you can if you do what OP said:
| `git clone repo-one && git clone repo-two` and tell claude
| that repo-one directory is for example frontend, repo-two is
| backend (or better name the directories after what they are)
| bearjaws wrote:
| Exactly this, nothing fancy really.
| booli wrote:
| You can use git work tree for that. There is a very extensive
| blog here:
|
| https://www.pulsemcp.com/posts/how-to-use-claude-code-to-
| wie...
| rtp4me wrote:
| Just started using Claude (very late to the game), and I am truly
| blown away. Instead of struggling for hours trying to get the
| right syntax for a Powershell script or to convert Python to Go,
| I simply ask Claude to make it happen. This helps me focus on
| content creation instead of the mind-bending experience of syntax
| across various languages. While some might call it laziness, I
| call it freedom as it helps me get my stuff done quicker.
|
| I have been using it for other stuff (real estate, grilling
| recipes, troubleshooting electrical issues with my truck), and it
| seems to have a very large knowledge base. At this point, my goal
| is to get good at asking the right kinds of questions to get the
| best/most accurate answers.
| dmix wrote:
| That's great. Regardless of the naysayers about AI hype in
| tech, it was a major development for general society even if
| this is all it ends up being.
| billbrown wrote:
| It remains to be seen whether it's a net value once the VC
| firehose dries up and the true costs are revealed. It's quite
| possible that the profitable price is not worth it for most
| companies.
| KoolKat23 wrote:
| It can still be a lot more expensive and be cheaper than a
| human, it might mean less chance taking and spending the
| money to try set it up and see if it works though. More
| existing setups, less new setups.
| paulhodge wrote:
| I'm pretty sure that the $100 / $200 plans are a net profit
| for Anthropic. Most users (including myself) don't come
| close to the usage limit.
|
| I've been trying to max out the $100 plan and I have a
| problem where I run out of stuff to ask it to do. Even when
| I try to have multiple side projects at once, Claude just
| gets stuff done, and then sits idle.
| rtp4me wrote:
| I have been using Claude to iterate through some complex
| Powershell code to convert Azure VMs from Intel to AMD SKUs,
| and I simply can't believe how good it is. I am definitely
| NOT an Azure or Powershell expert by any means, but the power
| and ease of idea iteration is truly a game changer (I have
| been in IT since about '91). Yes, Claude makes some mistakes
| - typically with certain command arguments, but I am able to
| lean on my experience to work through those issues.
|
| What would have taken me a week to get up-to-speed with
| Powershell and all the Azure powershell commands/syntax has
| now taken me about 4hrs.
| jonstewart wrote:
| I've been playing with Claude Code the past few days. It is very
| energetic and maybe will help me get over the hump on some long-
| standing difficult problems, but it loses focus quickly. Despite
| explicit directions in CLAUDE.md to build with "make -j8" and run
| unit tests with "make -j8 check", I see it sometimes running make
| without -j or calling the test executable directly. I would like
| to limit it to doing certain essential aspects of workflow with
| the commands I specify, just as a developer would normally do.
| Are "Hooks" the right answer?
| bfLives wrote:
| For the `-j` issue specifically, exporting `MAKEFLAGS=-j8`
| should work.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| or mcp
| kaoD wrote:
| Thanks, I'll let Claude know.
| paulhodge wrote:
| The AI definitely gets confused when there is a lot of stuff
| happening. It helps if you try to make the commands as easy as
| possible. Like, change 'make' so that '-j8' is default, or add
| scripts like make-check.sh that does 'make -j check', or add an
| MCP server that has commands for the most common actions (tell
| the AI to write an MCP server for you).
|
| Hooks would probably help, I think you could add a hook to
| auto-reject the bot when it calls the wrong thing.
| cheriot wrote:
| Amazing how there's whole companies dedicated to this and yet
| claude code keeps leading the way.
| wippler wrote:
| Not to take away anything here, but hooks are present in other
| similar products. Atleast one example here -
| https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazonq/latest/qdeveloper-ug/com...
| stavros wrote:
| Does it? Claude Code is the product that works the least well
| for me, mainly because of its tendency to go off and do tons of
| stuff. I've found LLMs are at their best when they produce few
| enough lines of code that I can review and iterate, not when
| they go off and invent the world.
|
| For that reason, I mainly use Aider and Cursor (the latter
| mostly in the "give me five lines" comment mode).
| danielbln wrote:
| I tell Claude Code to make a detailed implementation plan,
| then come back to me for discussion, then we step through the
| plan bit by bit together. It's all about guidelines. Don't
| want it to charge ahead? Tell it not to.
| mkagenius wrote:
| As an aside, people say AI will eliminate coding jobs, but then
| who will configure these hooks? Or think about adding such a
| feature?
|
| These kinds of tooling and related work will still be there
| unless AI evolves to the point that it even thinks of this and
| announces this to all other AI entities and they also implement
| it properly etc.
| mrmincent wrote:
| To misuse a woodworking metaphor, I think we're experiencing a
| shift from hand tools to power tools.
|
| You still need someone who understands the basics to get the
| good results out of the tools, but they're not chiseling fine
| furniture by hand anymore, they're throwing heaps of wood
| through the tablesaw instead. More productive, but more likely
| to lose a finger if you're not careful.
| forgotoldacc wrote:
| And we may get an ugly transitory period where a lot of
| programs go from being clearly hand made with some degree of
| care and some fine details that show the developer's
| craftsmanship, to awful prefab and brutalist software that
| feels inhuman, mass-produced, and nothing is really fit for
| the job but still shipped because it kind of works well
| enough.
|
| People go to museums to admire old hand-carved furniture and
| travel to cities to admire the architecture of centuries past
| made with hand-chiseled blocks. While power tools do let
| people make things of equal quality faster, they're instead
| generally used to make things of worse quality much, much
| faster and the field has gone from being a craft to simply
| being an assembly line job. As bad as software is today,
| we're likely to hit even deeper lows and people will miss the
| days where Electron apps are good compared to what's yet to
| come.
|
| There's already been one step in this direction with the
| Cambrian extinction of 90s/early 2000s software. People still
| talk about how soulful Winamp/old Windows Media
| Player/ZSNES/etc were.
| torginus wrote:
| I kinda feel differently - it's more like how nowadays you
| have access to high-quality power tools at cheap prices,
| and tons of tutorials on Youtube that teach you how to do
| woodworking, and even if you can't afford the masterwork
| furniture made by craftsmen, you don't have to buy the
| shitty mass produced stuff - sure yours won't be as good,
| but it will be made to your spec.
|
| Moving on into a concrete software example, thanks to AI
| productivity, we replaced a lot of expensive and crappy
| subscription SaaS software with our homegrown stuff. Our
| stuff is probably 100x simpler (everyone knows the pain of
| making box software for a diverse set of customer needs,
| everything needs to be configurable, which leads to crazy
| convoluted code, and a lot of it). It's also much better
| and cheaper to run, to say nothing of the money we save by
| not paying the exorbitant subscription fee.
|
| I suspect the biggest losers of the AI revolution will be
| the SaaS companies whose value proposition was: Yes you can
| use open source for this, but the extra cost of an engineer
| who maintains this is more than we charge.
|
| As for bespoke software, 'slop' software using Electron, or
| Unity in video games exists because people believe in the
| convenience of using these huge lumbering monoliths that
| come with a ton of baggage, while they were taught the
| creed that coding to the metal is too hard.
|
| LLMs can help with that, and show people that they can do
| bespoke from scratch (and more importantly teach people how
| to do that). Claude/o3/whatever can probably help you build
| a game in WebGL you thought you needed a game engine for.
| forgotoldacc wrote:
| Hence the transitory period.
|
| We went through decades of absolutely hideous slop, and
| now people are yearning for the past and learning how to
| make things that are aesthetically appealing, like the
| things that used to be common.
|
| I think we're looking at at least a decade of absolute
| garbage coming up because it's cheap to make, and people
| like things that are cheap in the short term. Then people
| will look back at when software was "good", and use new
| tools to make things that were as good as they were
| before.
|
| And not limited to AI and power tools, it happened with
| art as well. Great art was made with oil paints,
| watercolors, and brushes. Then digital painting and
| Photoshop came around and we had a long period of
| absolute messes on DeviantArt and a lot of knowledge of
| good color usage and blending was basically lost, but art
| was produced much faster. Now digital artists are
| learning traditional methods and combining it with modern
| technology to make digital art that can be produced
| faster than traditional art, but with quality that's just
| as good.
|
| 2005 digital paintings have a distinct, and even in the
| hands of great artists, very sloppy and amateurish feel.
| Meanwhile 2020s digital artists easily rival the greats
| of decades and centuries past.
| danielbln wrote:
| Don't talk about AI with those digital artists though,
| they will slaughter you for it. The discourse on GenAI in
| the digital art world (and gaming world, for that matter)
| has reached an absolutely deranged fever pitch that far
| outpaces the original valid points about copyright,
| compensation and intent that were there before. Now it's
| just screeching.
| konart wrote:
| >nothing is really fit for the job but still shipped
| because it kind of works well enough.
|
| This is true for most of the software these days (except
| for professional software like Photoshop and the like)
| without LLMs.
| trainerxr50 wrote:
| Exactly. As a non-software engineer, people talk about
| software as some fine art on here while my experience as
| a user is that most software basically sucks in one way
| or another.
| rustyboy wrote:
| Amen - As a SWE and i've come to realize that no one pays
| for me to treat code as craftman quality so I don't. The
| whole agile mindset is get something out that
| demonstrates value and fix it things while you go. And in
| ten years i've also realized that my ability to sit down
| and make something really special the first time through
| is - shit. This is the first time i've been able to meet
| timelines while still producing a better product.
| rolisz wrote:
| I think it's going to go the opposite way: we'll get a lot
| more custom made software, that fits exactly what a small
| customer needs. The code might be utter crap, the design
| might not be award winning, but it will be custom made to a
| degree that you can't customize your average Savas.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| This was the promise of "no code" / "low code" solutions
| in the past
|
| It has never worked in the past, I'm not entirely
| convinced that it will work now
| himeexcelanta wrote:
| Agreed. Trying to live in a high level of abstraction
| without understanding the components of the system will
| cause the project to fail after a certain point.
| voiper1 wrote:
| But "utter crap" isn't just an aesthetic issue - that can
| mean all kinds of bugs and malfunctions!
| isoprophlex wrote:
| And infinite job security for those who know how to turn
| on a debugger
| txs wrote:
| Or people will just throw the product away and buy a
| replacement because it's cheaper than fixing it, much
| like we no longer mend clothes
| pseudosavant wrote:
| I think the kind of people, who in the past constructed
| extremely useful (if brittle) solutions with Excel, will
| be creating all sorts of AI bespoke and very useful
| tools.
|
| It won't bother them at all what the code looks like
| under the hood. Not that the code will look worse that
| what an "average" developer produces. Claude and ChatGPT
| both write better code than most of the existing code I
| usually look at.
| floriferous wrote:
| Great metaphor, exactly how it feels to me too!
| conception wrote:
| Feels more like photography. Everyone will "soon" have a tool
| that lets you take pretty great photos - surpassing
| professional of thirty years ago.
|
| If you want professional work done you'll still hire someone
| but that person will also use a lot of professional grade
| computer tooling with it.
|
| But there definitely won't be as many jobs as before -
| especially on the low skill end.
| otterley wrote:
| When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like your
| thumb.
| energy123 wrote:
| If programmers become 10x more productive but demand only grows
| by 5x, what will happen?
| falcor84 wrote:
| Obviously there will still be as many programmers, each
| working 2.5 days a week. </wishful-thinking>
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| And surely each programmer will still earn just as much
| income but only work half as much
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| in my experience software demand never slows, its just priced
| out. Remember a decade ago we were developing a lot slower
| due to hardware constraints and other things, now we develop
| much faster but the features we develop are more complex and
| there are more of them.
|
| I'm not convinced there is a limiter on software demand as it
| seems to grow alongside development speed. We all have huge
| backlogs in any non-trivial system.
| wastewastewaste wrote:
| Yea man, people say combine harvesters will eliminate
| agriculture jobs, but then who will operate these combine
| harvesters? Obviously every single manual farm laborer will
| just switch to being an operator of those.
|
| God, will we never move this discussion past this worthless
| argument? What value would there be in any of these
| automatization tools, be in in agriculture or AI, if it just
| made every single worker switch to being an [automatization
| tool] operator?
| ath92 wrote:
| Barring population growth, there is essentially fixed demand
| for agriculture. For software we don't know what the market
| will look like once everything about making it gets
| automated. Either we will churn out the same amount of
| software with fewer people, or the same amount of people will
| churn out larger amounts of software. Or maybe there will be
| even more people working on creating enormous amounts of
| software. I'd say the likely answer is somewhere between the
| first and second option, but time will tell.
| yes_man wrote:
| If software becomes cheaper to make it's not like every IT
| company in the world is running a cartel where they agree
| to just cut costs and leave the output the same. Someone
| will come and smash the competition with more or better
| features and the ones who didn't invest into development
| will face pressure to acquire more talent again.
|
| There really isn't a diminishing return on executing great
| ideas. Almost all software projects have an essentially
| endless backlog of items that could be done. So I think it
| will be between 2. and 3. with people who really understand
| how software is built being even more in demand than ever
| since they act as multipliers in making sure the increased
| output is evolvable and maintainable.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Only a few lucky ones will get the operator jobs, everyone
| else will queue at the job center.
| danielbln wrote:
| Save people, not jobs. Alas, the powers that be prevent
| that.
| pjmlp wrote:
| As seen in many countries, people without jobs don't have
| much of to live from, unless they are lucky ones living
| at the beach profiting from shares, driven by endless
| exponential growth demands.
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| > _unless AI evolves to the point that it even thinks of this_
|
| The #1 goal of every AI company is to create an AI that is
| capable of programming and improving itself to create the next,
| more powerful AI. Of course, these kind of configuration jobs
| will be outsourced to AI as soon as possible, too.
| falcor84 wrote:
| Like in the story about cosmologist and the old lady, you seem
| to be asking "What is the AI standing on?", and the reply here
| is of course "You're very clever, young man, very clever, but
| it's AIs all the way down!"
|
| Many already let Claude Code update its own CLAUDE.md, so I
| don't see any reason why you couldn't (dangerously-skipping-
| permissions) let it edit its own hooks. And as in Jurassic
| Park, the question of whether we should seems to be left by the
| wayside.
| nikita2206 wrote:
| You can already ask Claude Code to modify its own settings
| yoavm wrote:
| I generally agree that "we" will still be needed, but OTOH, who
| needs prettier if no human is ever going to read the code?
| pjmlp wrote:
| Except that for most people this is not coding, is
| administration work, DevOps kind of stuff.
|
| I already do lots of "coding" in SaaS products, that have very
| little to do with what most HNers think of proper coding.
| paulddraper wrote:
| > people say AI will eliminate coding jobs
|
| Yes.
|
| > then who will configure these hooks?
|
| It will also create jobs.
|
| > unless AI evolves to the point that it even thinks of this
| and announces this to all other AI entities and they also
| implement it properly
|
| Also yes.
|
| ---
|
| People think that technology is some sort of binary less
| jobs/more jobs thing.
|
| Technology eliminates some jobs and creates others.
| aantix wrote:
| Wish it supported rollbacks..
| robbomacrae wrote:
| With this you could add support yourself!
|
| Add a PostToolUse [0] hook that automatically creates a git
| commit whenever changes are made. Then you can either git
| checkout the commit you want to rollback to... Or you could
| assign those git commits an index and make a little MCP server
| that allows you to /rollback:goto 3 or /rollback:back 2 or
| whichever syntax you want to support.
|
| In fact if you put that paragraph into Claude I wouldn't be
| surprised if it made it for you.
|
| [0] https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-
| code/hooks#posttoo...
| b0a04gl wrote:
| >before this you had to trust that claude would follow your
| readme instructions about running linters or tests. hit and miss
| at best. now its deterministic. pre hook blocks bad actions post
| hook validates results.
|
| >hooks let you build workflows where multiple agents can hand off
| work safely. one agent writes code another reviews it another
| deploys it. each step gated by verification hooks.
| icoder wrote:
| This nicely describes where we're at with LLM's as I see it:
| they are 'fancy' enough to be able to write code yet at the
| same time they can't be trusted to do stuff which can be solved
| with a simple hook.
|
| I feel that currently improvement mostly comes from slapping
| what to me feels like workarounds on top of something that very
| well may be a local maximum.
| Marazan wrote:
| Someone described LLMs in the coding space as stone soup. So
| much stuff is being created around then to make them work
| better that at some point it feels like you'll be able to
| remove the LLM part of the equation
| samrus wrote:
| We cant deny the LLM has utility. You cant eat the stone
| but the LLM can implement design patterns for example.
|
| I think this insistance on near autonomous agents is
| setting the bar too high, which wouldnt be an issue if
| these companies werent then insisting that the bar is set
| just right.
|
| These things understand language perfectly, theyve solved
| NLP because thats what they model extremely well. But
| agentic stuff is modelled by reinforcement learning and
| until thats in the foundation model itself (at the token
| prediction level) these things have no real understanding
| of state spaces being a recursive function of action spaces
| and such stuff. And they cant autonomously code or drive or
| manage a fund until they do
| ramoz wrote:
| Claude Code is an agent, not an LLM. Literally this is
| software that was released 4mo ago. lol.
|
| 1y ago - No provider was training LLMs in an environment
| modeled for agentic behavior - ie in conjunction with
| software design of an integrated utility.
|
| 'slapped on workaround' is a very lazy way to describe this
| innovation.
| koakuma-chan wrote:
| > Literally this is software that was released 4mo ago.
|
| Feels like ages
| ryandvm wrote:
| That's what a singularity feels like.
| oefrha wrote:
| > they are 'fancy' enough to be able to write code yet at the
| same time they can't be trusted to do stuff which can be
| solved with a simple hook.
|
| Humans are fancy enough to be able to write code yet at the
| same time they can't be trusted to do stuff which can be
| solved with a simple hook, like a simple formatter or linter.
| That's why we still run those on CI. This is a meaningless
| statement.
| RobertDeNiro wrote:
| One is a machine the other one is not. People have to stop
| comparing LLMs to humans. Would you hold a car to human
| standards?
| oefrha wrote:
| The machine just needs to be coded to run stuff (as shown
| in this very post). My coworkers can't be coded to follow
| procedures and still submit PRs failing basic checks,
| sadly.
| zhivota wrote:
| A self driving car, yes.
| iagooar wrote:
| Humans use tools, so does AI. Does us make any less valuable
| as humans because we use bicycles and hammers? Why would it
| be bad for an AI to use tools?
| gwbas1c wrote:
| I wonder how hard it is to create an alternate user account and
| have Claude run as that user instead?
| symbolicAGI wrote:
| A NYC bank has given its coding agents email addresses.
| theusus wrote:
| I was yesterday only searching for ways to live lint than waiting
| for Claude to do that or during pre-commit
| ainiriand wrote:
| I tried to make an app in claude code like they so much fanfare
| it could do, and it failed. It was obvious it will fail, I wanted
| something that I think it was not done before, using the Youtube
| api. But it failed nonetheless.
|
| I am tired of pretending that this can actually pull any
| meaningful work besides a debug companion or a slightly enhanced
| google/stackoverflow.
| bognition wrote:
| Interesting how long ago did you do this? How long did you
| spend on it?
|
| I was skeptical about Claude code and then I spent a week
| really learning how to use it. Within the week I had built a
| backend with FastAPI that supported user creation, password
| reset, email confirmation, a front end, and support for ouath
| into a few systems.
|
| It definitely took me some time to learn how to make it work,
| but I'm astounded at how much work I got done and for so little
| typing.
| ainiriand wrote:
| Yesterday!
| dakiol wrote:
| How do you know the code is solid? If your bar is "if it
| runs, then it is good", then alright, otherwise you (or
| someone else) need to review that code. So, Yeah llms are
| nice but i don't think we can just go and deploy whatever
| they throw at us.
| timschmidt wrote:
| Do you allow interns to push to prod? Because I don't. The
| LLM is treated no differently. It's an extraordinarily
| fast, extraordinarily well read intern. You can ask it to
| do anything, it might succeed, anything it produces should
| be reviewed fully. I already interact with interns and open
| source project contributors in a similar fashion, so the
| LLM plugs right in.
| solumunus wrote:
| If you can't build something without Claude you will probably
| fail to build it with Claude.
| lukan wrote:
| "I wanted something that I think it was not done before"
|
| But you do know, that this is what LLMs ain't good at.
|
| So your conclusion is somewhat off, because there are plenty of
| programming work of things that were done before and require
| just tweaking.
|
| I mean, I am also not hooked yet and just occasionally use
| chatGPT/claude for concrete stuff, but I do find it useful and
| I do see, where it can get really useful for me (once it really
| knows my codebase and the libaries used and does not jump
| between incompatible API versions)
| ainiriand wrote:
| Yes that is a very accurate assessment, I use Claude almost
| all the time for other tasks, but when it was a moment to
| really put it to the test I was not able to produce anything
| at least usable.
|
| My request involved a local web application that acted as a
| server for other clients in the same network using Rust.
|
| I wanted to use websockets, it never worked and I was never
| able to nudge it in any meaningful direction, it started to
| make circular edits on the codebase and it just never worked.
| samrus wrote:
| Its definitely not there yet. You have to babysit it alot. Its
| not autonomous.
|
| The utility i find is that it helps _me_ do the real
| engineering work, the planning and solution architechting, and
| then can bang out code once it has rock solid instructions (in
| natural language but honestly one level above psuedocode) and
| then i have to review it with absolutely zero faith in its
| ability to do things. Then it can work well.
|
| But its not where these guys are claiming it is
| ramoz wrote:
| But you know just how powerful that middle bit is.
|
| An engineer will truly 10x with these, maybe greater. So will
| the unskilled but they will have diminishing returns over
| more usage.
| svara wrote:
| Exactly. My hunch is that those who try to find reasons why
| AI coding bad are either
|
| * afraid that the demands on them in their job will increase
| * actually like and are attached to the act of writing out
| code.
|
| Frankly I can sometimes empathize with both but their
| conclusions are still wrong.
| ramoz wrote:
| If you do not know the software design, claude code will fail.
| If you know the software design, you can guide it toward
| success.
| causal wrote:
| I see this a lot on HN: approach AI hoping it will fail and
| declaring it useless when minimal effort produces bad
| results.
| svara wrote:
| I build things that haven't been done before with Cursor all
| the time. You have to break it down into simple building blocks
| rather than specifying everything up front.
|
| If you do it right this actually forces good design.
| stpedgwdgfhgdd wrote:
| Use TDD so CC can converge. I see people tuning a prompt, that
| is fun, not software engineering.
| ryandvm wrote:
| I have a side project Android app. To test Claude Code, I
| loaded it up in the repo and asked it to add a subscription
| billing capability to the app. Not rocket science, but it
| probably would have taken me a day or two to figure out the
| mechanics of Google Play subscription billing and implement it
| in code.
|
| Claude Code did it in 30 seconds and it works flawlessly.
|
| I am so confused how people are not seeing this as a valuable
| tool. Like, are you asking it to solve P versus NP or
| something?
|
| If you need to do something that's been done a million times,
| but you don't have experience with it, LLMs are an excellent
| way to get running quickly.
| prmph wrote:
| I frequently have to remind Claude Code of the instructions in
| the CLAUDE.md file, as well as various general aspects of the
| code base.
|
| Maybe this will enable a fix
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| > Stop using early returns in void functions! It's in the
| clause.md you shouldn't do that in this project!
|
| Reading CLAUDE.md (22 seconds, 2.6k tokens..)
|
| You're absolutely right!
| camwest wrote:
| A couple of example hooks: https://cameronwestland.com/building-
| my-first-claude-code-ho...
|
| I'm happy to see Claude Code reaching parity with Cursor for
| linting/type checking after edits.
| Syzygies wrote:
| .claude/settings.local.json fragment: "hooks": {
| "PostToolUse": [ { "matcher":
| "Edit|MultiEdit|Write", "hooks": [ {
| "type": "command", "command": "jq -r
| '.tool_input.file_path' | xargs bin/save-hook.sh" }
| ] } ] }
|
| I jumped at this HN post, because Claude Code Opus 4 has this
| stupid habit of never terminating files with a return.
|
| To test a new hook one needs to restart claude. Better to run the
| actual processing through a script one can continually edit in
| one session. This script uses formatters on C files and shell
| scripts, and just fixes missing returns on other files.
|
| As usual claude and other AI is poor at breaking problems into
| small steps, and makes up ways to do things. The above hook
| receives a json file, which I first saved to disk, then extracted
| the file path and saved that to disk, then instead called save-
| hook.sh on that path. Now we're home after a couple of edits to
| save-hook.sh
|
| This was all ten minutes. I wasted far more time letting it flail
| attempting bigger steps at once.
| 6thbit wrote:
| Find it a bit odd they didn't model this as an MCP server itself,
| and making hooks just mcp tools with pre-agreed names.
|
| Wouldn't it be nice to have the agent autodiscover the hooks and
| abstracting their implementation details away under the mcp
| server, which you could even reuse by other agents?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-07-01 23:01 UTC)