[HN Gopher] Claude Code CLI was broken
___________________________________________________________________
Claude Code CLI was broken
Author : sneilan1
Score : 167 points
Date : 2026-01-07 20:25 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| indigodaddy wrote:
| Maybe try opencode
| stavros wrote:
| Is it better than CC? Can it use my subscription, or is it API-
| only? I've seen it mentioned, but not many people elaborate on
| the performance.
| Loeffelmann wrote:
| You can use subscriptions.
|
| I like it but I am not too deep into the whole agentic coding
| business.
| viraptor wrote:
| It's about the same as CC. You can use subscriptions and API.
| It works well with basically all the providers as well - no
| need for hacks over Claude-like endpoints. Most big plugins
| I've dealt with support both CC and OC at the same time.
| mkagenius wrote:
| Last I tried, it wasn't. In that vein you can use Qwen code
| too.
| Squarex wrote:
| I have used it with antigravity subscription and it felt
| worse than antigravity itself. Notably the planning was way
| worse.
| indigodaddy wrote:
| Are the Opus limits with AG/AI Pro plan still quite good?
| Squarex wrote:
| I have hit the limits several times already, but it
| resets every 5 hours.
| joflicu wrote:
| You can use opencode with your existing subscription by
| hooking it correctly via "opencode auth login".
| convenwis wrote:
| This is interesting because Anthropic seems to allow
| Opencode to do this but no one else. And the lead on
| opencode won't comment (https://github.com/anomalyco/openco
| de/issues/417#issuecommen...).
|
| I am curious what the logic here is.
| Loeffelmann wrote:
| Some one apparently figured it out. The first system
| message has to include
|
| "You are Claude Code, Anthropic's official CLI for
| Claude."
|
| https://github.com/link-assistant/agent/pull/63
| stavros wrote:
| Very interesting, thanks! Hopefully it'll allow me to
| switch between CC and Codex easily too.
| someguyiguess wrote:
| What's the advantage of using a third party tool? What extra
| functionality does it have?
| wiseowise wrote:
| It is open source, to start with.
| behnamoh wrote:
| I don't like the main developer (dax). He is too arrogant and
| self-righteous.
| Squarex wrote:
| I am not saying that he is not, but do you have any
| references or dramas?
| nexawave-ai wrote:
| It has over 1,400 open issues and over 600 open pull requests.
| That doesnt inspire much confidence in me to use this tool.
| thehamkercat wrote:
| Claude code has more than 5000 Open issues
| phyrex wrote:
| workaround from the issue discussion:
|
| ``` Problem: Claude Code 2.1.0 crashes with
| Invalid Version: 2.1.0 (2026-01-07) because the CHANGELOG.md
| format changed to include dates in version headers (e.g., ##
| 2.1.0 (2026-01-07)). The code parses these headers as object keys
| and tries to sort them using semver's .gt() function, which can't
| parse version strings with date suffixes. Affected
| functions: W37, gw0, and an unnamed function around line 3091
| that fetches recent release notes. Fix: Wrap version
| strings with semver.coerce() before comparison. Run these 4 sed
| commands on cli.js:
| CLI_JS="$HOME/.nvm/versions/node/$(node
| -v)/lib/node_modules/@anthropic-ai/claude-code/cli.js"
| # Backup first cp "$CLI_JS" "$CLI_JS.backup" #
| Patch 1: Fix ve2.gt sort (recent release notes) sed -i 's/O
| bject\.keys(B)\.sort((Y,J)=>ve2\.gt(Y,J,{loose:!0})?-1:1)/Object.
| keys(B).sort((Y,J)=>ve2.gt(ve2.coerce(Y),ve2.coerce(J),{loose:!0}
| )?-1:1)/g' "$CLI_JS" # Patch 2: Fix gw0 sort sed
| -i 's/sort((G,Z)=>Wt\.gt(G,Z,{loose:!0})?1:-1)/sort((G,Z)=>Wt.gt(
| Wt.coerce(G),Wt.coerce(Z),{loose:!0})?1:-1)/g' "$CLI_JS"
| # Patch 3: Fix W37 filter sed -i 's/filter((\[J\])=>!Y||Wt\
| .gt(J,Y,{loose:!0}))/filter(([J])=>!Y||Wt.gt(Wt.coerce(J),Y,{loos
| e:!0}))/g' "$CLI_JS" # Patch 4: Fix W37 sort sed
| -i 's/sort((\[J\],\[X\])=>Wt\.gt(J,X,{loose:!0})?-1:1)/sort(([J],
| [X])=>Wt.gt(Wt.coerce(J),Wt.coerce(X),{loose:!0})?-1:1)/g'
| "$CLI_JS" Note: If installed via different method,
| adjust CLI_JS path accordingly (e.g.,
| /usr/lib/node_modules/@anthropic-ai/claude-code/cli.js).
|
| ```
| MattDaEskimo wrote:
| Parsing markdown into a data structure without any sort of
| error handling is diabolical for a company like Anthropic
| llmslave2 wrote:
| Why? Their software sucks, they're an LLM company not a
| software company.
| behnamoh wrote:
| They're a LLM company that has claimed that 90% of code
| will be written by LLMs. Please don't give them any
| excuses.
| cozzyd wrote:
| This sounds exactly like the type of thing you would expect
| an LLM to do
| wowoc wrote:
| Running sed commands manually in 2026? Just tell Codex to fix
| your Claude Code
| nycdatasci wrote:
| Work around from comments: rm -rf ~/.claude/cache
| mkdir -p ~/.claude/cache echo "# Changelog" >
| ~/.claude/cache/changelog.md chmod 444
| ~/.claude/cache/changelog.md
| smca wrote:
| It's fixed as of nine minutes ago:
| https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/pull/16686
| agumonkey wrote:
| was this a 10x gdp vibe-loss ?
| actionfromafar wrote:
| I felt a disturbance in the force, as if millions of GPU
| cooling fans suddenly spun down.
| Loeffelmann wrote:
| Lol a formatting error in a change log breaking the entire
| thing
| hughes wrote:
| Genuinely curious how a date in the subheader of a changelog
| could have broken the CLI
|
| edit: it seems changelog.md is assumed to be structured data
| and parsed at startup, and there are no tests to enforce the
| changelog structure: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-
| code/issues/16671
| j2kun wrote:
| This is the kind of choice an LLM would make...
| jeffrallen wrote:
| You're absolutely right! ;)
| therealpygon wrote:
| You might be surprised (or not, depending on how long
| you've been doing this).
| Y_Y wrote:
| Ah yes, markdown, the ultimate structure for machine-readable
| data
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Someone had to come up with something even _more_ annoying
| than yaml for machine-readable data. :)
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| They're using Markdown for everything in LLM-land.
| falloutx wrote:
| its vibe coded to its teets and gets reviewed by AI
| cube00 wrote:
| What a lazy commit message, "Update CHANGELOG.md", no mention
| of the "why" at all. Even the PR description is blank.
| tomashubelbauer wrote:
| This is especially bizarre because one thing LLMs have been
| better at that practically all the developers I have ever
| worked with is writing good commit messages. The fact they
| didn't make use of this here when everything else in Claude
| Code seems vibe-coded these days is funny to me.
| mjmas wrote:
| Claude Code couldn't write a commit description since it
| was broken at that point.
| hrpnk wrote:
| With the issues since November where one has to add environment
| variables, block statsig hosts, modify ~/.claude.json, etc. does
| anyone have experience in managed setups where versions are
| centrally set and bumped on company level? Is this worth the
| hassle?
| viraptor wrote:
| I'm surprised that they don't do an integration test in CI where
| they actually start the app. (Since that's all you need to catch
| it)
| someguyiguess wrote:
| The irony is that I have a Claude agent to do exactly this on
| my projects. You'd think they would have thought of that too.
| fragmede wrote:
| They have now!
| falloutx wrote:
| I mean claude agent isnt known for writing good tests. amount
| of bugs it misses makes me tear up
| eterm wrote:
| Ironically that might have passed, because this didn't break
| the version, this broke _all versions_ when the global
| referenced changelog was published. It wasn 't the new version
| itself that was broken.
|
| But testing new version would have been downloading the not-
| yet-updated working changelog.
|
| There are ways to deal with this of course, and I'm not
| defending the very vibey way that claude-code is itself
| developed.
| viraptor wrote:
| Ah, that's an external file. That explains it.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| We're trying to make billions of dollars here, we don't have
| time to do crazy things like test basic functionality before
| shipping changes to all live users at once
| kwancloudli wrote:
| why people still use it then? I can confirm 99.9% programmers
| now can't finish the daily task without using Claude Code
| stpedgwdgfhgdd wrote:
| Our product is so good, the users are willing to put up with
| a bug once and there.
|
| We need to get marketshare by going fast!
| Ancapistani wrote:
| You jest, but I'm trying to decide if I want to convert an
| exploratory project I'm working on to work in Claude Code
| rather than Cursor, where I started.
|
| I've been using AI codegen for months now, but on large
| projects. Turns out, the productivity multiplier that
| agentic AI can be scales at least partially in proportion
| to project size. Read that again, because I don't mean
| "inverse proportion".
|
| When a codebase is small, every change touches a majority
| of the codebase, making parallel work difficult or
| impossible. Once it gets large enough to have functional
| areas, you can have multiple tasks running at once with
| little or no merge conflicts.
|
| I was giving Cursor a shot because it's the tool that's
| most popular at my new company. Prior to this, I was using
| OpenHands. I've used Claude Code quite a bit for my
| personal stuff, but I wanted some hands-on experience with
| local tooling and Cursor was the default choice.
|
| Now that I've got this app to the point where frontend and
| backend concerns are separate and the interfaces are
| defined I'm realizing that Cursor doesn't seem to have
| anything approaching Claude Code's parallel subagent
| support. That's... limiting.
|
| So now I get to decide if the improvement in velocity I'll
| get from switching to CC will offset the time it'll take me
| to make the change before I have a deadline to meet.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Considering how shitty tests my coworkers are producing with
| Claude, I'm not all that surprised.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| I just set this up for the project I'm working on last week,
| and felt dirty because it took me a couple of months to get to
| it. There are like 5 or 6 users.
|
| There's something so unnerving about the people pushing the AI
| frontier being sloppy about testing. I know, it's just a CLI
| wrapped around the AI itself, but it suggests to me that the
| culture around testing there isn't as tight and thorough as I'd
| like it to be.
| frays wrote:
| Claude Code creator said Claude wrote 100% of his code last
| month: https://xcancel.com/bcherny/status/2004897269674639461
| midldei wrote:
| I read your comment as a joke, but in case if was a defense, or
| is taken as a defense by others, let me help you punch up your
| writing for you:
|
| "[Person who is financially incentivized to make unverifiable
| claims about the utility of the tool they helped build] said
| [tool] [did an unverified and unverifiable thing] last month"
| antonvs wrote:
| "Claude Code creator relied so heavily on Claude Code that he
| broke Claude Code"
| kace91 wrote:
| >In the last thirty days, I landed 259 PRs -- 497 commits, 40k
| lines added, 38k lines removed.
|
| Is anyone with or without AI approaching anywhere near that
| speed of delivery?
|
| I don't think my whole company matches that amount. It sounds
| super unreasonable, just doing a sanity check.
| vessenes wrote:
| Check out Steve Yegge's pace with beads and gas town - well
| in excess of that.
| drdrey wrote:
| ...but is it good?
| cheschire wrote:
| No, per Steve himself.
|
| https://steve-yegge.medium.com/welcome-to-gas-
| town-4f25ee16d...
| no-name-here wrote:
| Specifically:
|
| > It's also 100% vibe coded. I've never seen the code,
| and I never care to, which might give you pause. 'Course,
| I've never looked at Beads either, and it's 225k lines of
| Go code that tens of thousands of people are using every
| day. I just created it in October. If that makes you
| uncomfortable, get out now.
| bschwarz wrote:
| Was it Steve Yegge who introduced "but is it good?
| [yes]"? I can't find the first instance of this.
| lelanthran wrote:
| Yeah, but at that pace it is, for all practical purposes,
| unreviewable.
|
| Humans writing is slow, no doubt, but humans reading code
| ain't that much faster.
| groundzeros2015 wrote:
| I can make a bot that touches each line of code and commits
| it, if you would like.
| deepjoy wrote:
| Recently came across a project on HN front page that was
| developed on Github with a public repo.
| https://github.com/steveyegge/gastown/graphs/contributors
| 2000 commits over 20 days +497K/-360K lines
|
| I'm not affiliated with Claude or the project linked.
| AlexCoventry wrote:
| The author has written an evangelical book about vibe
| coding.
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Vibe-Coding-Building-Production-
| Grade...
|
| He also has some other agent-coordination software.
| https://github.com/steveyegge/vc
|
| Don't know whether it's helpful, or what the difference is.
| AlexCoventry wrote:
| Anthropic must be loving this.
|
| > Gas Town is also expensive as hell. You won't like Gas
| Town if you ever have to think, even for a moment, about
| where money comes from. I had to get my second Claude Code
| account, finally; they don't let you siphon unlimited
| dollars from a single account, so you need multiple emails
| and siphons, it's all very silly. My calculations show that
| now that Gas Town has finally achieved liftoff, I will need
| a third Claude Code account by the end of next week. It is
| a cash guzzler.
|
| https://steve-yegge.medium.com/welcome-to-gas-
| town-4f25ee16d...
| mktemp-d wrote:
| 40K - 38K means 2K lines of actual code.
|
| Which could mean that code was refactored and then built on
| top of. Or it could just mean that Claude had to correct
| itself multiple times over those 459 commits.
|
| Does correcting your mistakes from yesterday's ChatGPT binge
| episode count as progress...maybe?
| lelanthran wrote:
| If it doesn't revert the corrections, maybe it is progress?
|
| I can easily imagine constant churn in the code because it
| switches between five different implementations when run
| five times, foing back to the first one on the sixth time
| and repeating the process.
|
| I gotta ask, though, why exactly is that much code needed
| for what CC does?
|
| It's a specialised wrapper.
| fragmede wrote:
| How many lines of code are they allowed to use for it,
| and why have we put you in charge of deciding how much
| code they're allowed to use? There's probably a bit more
| to it than just: #!/usr/bin/env bash
| while true; do printf "> " read -r
| USER_INPUT || exit 0 RESPONSE=$(curl -s
| https://api.openai.com/v1/chat/completions \
| -H "Authorization: Bearer $OPENAI_API_KEY" \
| -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d "{
| \"model\": \"gpt-5.2\", \"messages\": [
| {\"role\": \"user\", \"content\": \"$USER_INPUT\"}
| ] }") echo "$RESPONSE" | jq -r
| '.choices[0].message.content' done
| lelanthran wrote:
| > How many lines of code are they allowed to use for it,
| and why have we put you in charge of deciding how much
| code they're allowed to use?
|
| That's an awfully presumptious tone to take :-)
|
| I'm not deciding "This is how many lines they are
| allowed", I'm trying to get an idea of exactly what sort
| of functionality that CC provides _requires_ that sort of
| volume.
|
| I mean, it's a high-level language being used, it's
| pulling in a lot of dependencies, etc. It literally is
| glue code.
|
| Bearing in mind that it appears to be (at this point
| anyway) purely vibe-coded, I am wondering just how much
| of the code is dead weight - generated by the LLM and
| never removed.
| kybernetikos wrote:
| AI approaches can churn code more than a human would.
|
| Lines of code has always been a questionable metric of
| velocity, and AI makes that more true than ever.
| fzysingularity wrote:
| I'd love to see Claude Code remove more lines than it added
| TBH.
|
| There's a ton of cruft in code that humans are less
| inclined to remove because it just works, but imagine
| having LLM doing the clean up work instead of the
| generation work.
| kace91 wrote:
| Even discounting lines of code:
|
| - get a feature request/bug
|
| - understand the problem
|
| - think on a solution
|
| - deliver the solution
|
| - test
|
| - submit to code review, including sufficient explanation,
| and merge when ready
|
| 260 PRs a month means the cycle above is happening once per
| hour, at constant speed, for 60 hours work weeks.
| coldtea wrote:
| One can think of a lot of obvious improvements to a MVP
| product that don't requre much regarding "get a feature
| request/bug - understand the problem - think on a
| solution".
|
| You know the features you'd like to have in advance, or
| changes you want to make you can see as you build it.
|
| And a lot of the "deliver the solution - test - submit to
| code review, including sufficient explanation" can be
| handled by AI.
| bredren wrote:
| The premise of the steps you've listed is flawed in two
| ways.
|
| This is more what agentic-assisted dev looks like:
|
| 1. Get a feature request / bug
|
| 2. Enrich the request / bug description with additional
| details
|
| 3. Send AI agents to handle request
|
| 4a. In some situations, manually QA results, possibly
| return to 2.
|
| 4b. Otherwise, agents will babysit the code through
| merge.
|
| The second is that the above steps are performed in
| parallel across X worktrees. So, the stats are based on
| the above steps proceeding a handful of times per hour--
| in some cases completely unassisted.
|
| ---
|
| With enough automation, the engineer is only dealing with
| steps 2 and 4a. You get notified when you are needed, so
| your attention can focus on finding the next todo or
| enriching a current todo as per step 2.
|
| ---
|
| Babysitting the code through merge means it handles
| review comments and CI failures automatically.
|
| ---
|
| I find communication / consensus with stakeholders, and
| retooling take the most time.
| uoaei wrote:
| You're counting wheel revolutions, not miles travelled. Not
| an accurate proxy measurement unless you can verify the
| wheels are on the road for the entire duration.
| lukev wrote:
| Read that as "speed of lines of code", which is very VERY
| very different from "speed of delivery."
|
| Lines of code never correlated with quality or even progress.
| Now they do even less.
|
| I've been working a lot more with coding agents, but my
| convictions around the core principles of software
| development have not changed. Just the iteration speed of
| certain parts of the process.
| sefrost wrote:
| Is it possible for humans to review that amount of code?
|
| My understanding of the current state of AI in software
| engineering is that humans are allowed (and encouraged) to
| use LLMs to write code. BUT the person opening a PR must read
| and understand that code. And the code must be read and
| reviewed by other humans before being approved.
|
| I could easily generate that amount of code and make it write
| and pass tests. But I don't think I could have it reviewed by
| the rest of my team - while I am also taking part in
| reviewing code written by other people on my team at that
| pace.
|
| Perhaps they just aren't human reviewing the code? Then it is
| feasible to me. But it would go against all of the rules that
| I have personally encountered at my companies and that peers
| have told me they have at their companies.
| Hamuko wrote:
| > _BUT the person opening a PR must read and understand
| that code._
|
| The AI evangelists at my work who say this the loudest are
| also the ones shipping the most "did anyone actually look
| at this code?" bugs.
| sefrost wrote:
| It's very easy to not read the code, just like it's very
| easy to click "approve" on requests that the agent/LLM
| makes to run terminal commands.
| coldtea wrote:
| If the code is like React, 40k it's just the addition of a
| few CRUD views
| Kerrick wrote:
| ratatui_ruby % git remote -v origin
| https://git.sr.ht/~kerrick/ratatui_ruby (fetch) origin
| https://git.sr.ht/~kerrick/ratatui_ruby (push)
| ratatui_ruby % git checkout v0.8.0 HEAD is now at
| dd3407a chore: release v0.8.0 ratatui_ruby % git
| log --reverse --format="%ci" | head -1 | read first; \
| echo "First Commit: $first\nHEAD Commit: $(git show -s
| --format='%ci' HEAD --)" First Commit: 2025-12-22
| 00:40:22 -0600 HEAD Commit: 2026-01-05 08:57:58 -0600
| ratatui_ruby % git log --numstat --pretty=tformat: | \
| awk '$1 != "-" { \ if ($3 ~ /\./) { ext=$3;
| sub(/.*\./, "", ext) } else { ext="(no-ext)" } \ if
| (ext ~ /^(txt|ansi|lock)$/) next; \ add[ext]+=$1;
| rem[ext]+=$2 \ } \ END { for (e in add) print e,
| add[e], rem[e] }' | \ sort -k2 -nr | \ awk 'BEGIN
| { \ print
| "---------------------------------------"; \ printf
| "%-12s %12s %12s\n", "EXT", "ADDED", "REMOVED"; \
| print "---------------------------------------" \ } \
| { \ sum_a += $2; sum_r += $3; \ printf
| "%-12s %12d %12d\n", $1, $2, $3 \ } \ END { \
| print "---------------------------------------"; \
| printf "%-12s %12d %12d\n", "SUM:", sum_a, sum_r; \
| print "---------------------------------------" \ }'
| --------------------------------------- EXT
| ADDED REMOVED
| --------------------------------------- rb
| 51705 18913 md 20037
| 13167 rs 8576 3001 (no-
| ext) 4072 2157 rbs
| 2139 569 rake 1632
| 317 yml 1431 153 patch
| 894 894 erb 300 30
| toml 118 39 gemspec
| 62 10 gitignore 27 4
| css 22 0 yaml
| 18 2 ruby-version 1 1
| png 0 0 gitkeep
| 0 0 ---------------------------------------
| SUM: 91034 39257
| ---------------------------------------
| ratatui_ruby % cloc . 888 text files.
| 584 unique files.
| 341 files ignored. github.com/AlDanial/cloc v
| 2.06 T=0.26 s (2226.1 files/s, 209779.6 lines/s) -----
| -------------------------------------------------------------
| -------------- Language files
| blank comment code -------------------
| -------------------------------------------------------------
| Ruby 305 4792
| 10413 20458 Markdown
| 60 1989 256 4741 Rust
| 32 645 530 4400 Text
| 168 523 0 4358 YAML
| 8 316 17 961 ERB
| 3 20 4 246 Bourne
| Again Shell 2 24 90
| 150 TOML 5 16
| 10 53 CSS 1
| 3 8 11 -----------------------
| ---------------------------------------------------------
| SUM: 584 8328
| 11328 35378 ----------------------------------
| ----------------------------------------------
| rvz wrote:
| Back-peddling this tweet to 99% in 3, 2, 1.
| cube00 wrote:
| No chance, IPO is coming up, the only play is to double down
| hard now.
| danielbln wrote:
| Back in my day, honest to God humans wrote all code, and
| certainly never introduced any bugs.
| coldtea wrote:
| [deleted]
| dnw wrote:
| Not surprised (#5):
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46395714#46425529
| mvdtnz wrote:
| I'm not usually one to pile on to a developer for releasing a bug
| but this is pretty special. The nature of the bug (a change in
| format for a changelog markdown file causes the entire app to
| break) and the testing it would have taken to uncover it
| (literally any) makes this one especially embarrassing for
| Anthropic.
| smashed wrote:
| In the specific commit, what seems like a bot or automated
| script added changelog entries for 3 new versions in a single
| commit, which is odd for an automated script to do. And only
| the latest version had the date added.
|
| https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/commit/870624fc158...
|
| That actions-user seem to be mostly maintaining the Changelog
| but the commits does not seem consistent with an automated
| script. I see a few cases of rewriting previous change log
| entries or moving entries from one version to another which any
| kind of automation would not be doing. Seems like human error
| and poor testing.
| afro88 wrote:
| Honestly sounds more like what happens when you get an LLM to
| maintain a document. Random things get deleted, moved etc.
| smashed wrote:
| Feels like it should be fairly easy to instruct an LLM to
| not rewrite previous entries, unless that's a desired
| behavior.
|
| Also, why would 2 or 3 versions be documented in the same
| commit.
|
| But there's a good chance you are right.
| NickNaraghi wrote:
| Meta comment, but the pace of this is so exciting. Feels like a
| new AAA MMO release or something, having such a confluence of
| attention and a unified front.
| brunooliv wrote:
| Even if it broke after some sort of vibe coding session, the fact
| that we're now pushing these tools to their limits are what's
| allowing Anthropic and Boris getting a lot of useful insights to
| improve the models and experience further! So yeah, buckle up,
| bumps expected
| jennyholzer4 wrote:
| My interpretation is that Anthropic are incompetent software
| developers.
| denysvitali wrote:
| The good news is that they broke their usage tracking as well, so
| you can use Opus without any rate limit!
| qwertox wrote:
| Care to be more specific?
| denysvitali wrote:
| If you have a Claude subscription, it's unlimited now (no 5h
| / 7d limits)
| marinesebastian wrote:
| do you have any source for that?
| denysvitali wrote:
| Other than using 40x agents concurrently for 2h on a Pro
| plan? No.
|
| Btw, now it's back and limits are being enforced. Despite
| the super heavy usage, I'm still at just 50% of my total
| usage. They did lose some usage tracking for sure.
| lschueller wrote:
| I can confirm. It was roughly until 00:30 GMT no rate
| limits applied. (Pro Plan with Opus) And it took some
| time extra for them after usage limit applied again, that
| you were able to see the usage.
| chuckadams wrote:
| vibecodingisgoinggreat.com
| omnicognate wrote:
| As I commented [1] on the earlier Claude Code post, there's an
| issue [2] that has the following comment:
|
| > While we are always monitoring instances of this error and and
| looking to fix them, it's unlikely we will ever completely
| eliminate it due to how tricky concurrency problems are in
| general.
|
| This is an extraordinary admission. It is perfectly possible
| (easy, even, relative to many programming challenges) to write a
| tool like this without getting the design so wrong that the same
| bug keeps happening in so many different ways that you have to
| publicly admit you're powerless to fix them all.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46523740
|
| [2] https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/6836
| lucideer wrote:
| At least this breakage is clear & obvious.
|
| I did some testing of configuring Claude CLI sometime ago via
| .claude json config files - in particular I tested:
|
| - defining MCP servers manually in config (instead of having the
| CLI auto add them)
|
| - playing with various combinations of 'permissions` arrays
|
| What I discovered was that Claude is not only vibe coded, but
| basic local logic around config reading seems to also work on the
| basis of "vibes".
|
| - it seemed like different parts of the CLI codebase did or
| didn't adhere to the permissions arrays.
|
| - at one point it told me it didn't have permission to read the
| .claude directory & as a result ran bash commands to search my
| entire filesystem looking for MCP server URLs for it to provide
| me with a list of available MCP servers
|
| - when restricted to only be able to read from a working
| directory, at various points it told me I had denied it read
| permissions to that same working directory & also freely read
| from other directories on my system without prompting
|
| - restricting webfetch permissions is extremely hit & miss
| (tested with Little Snitch in alert mode)
|
| ---
|
| I have not reported any of the above as Github issues, nor do I
| intend to. I had a think about why I won't & it struck me that
| there's a funny dichotomy with AI tools:
|
| 1. all of the above are things the typical vibe coder stereotypes
| I've encountered simply do not really care deeply about
|
| 2. people that care about the above things are less likely to
| care enough about AI tools to commit their personal time to
| reporting & debugging these issues
|
| There's bound to be exceptions to these stereotypes out there but
| I doubt there's sufficient numbers to make AI tooling good.
| SamInTheShell wrote:
| I'd urge you to report it anyway. As someone that does use
| these tools I'm always on the lookout for other people pointing
| this type of stuff out. Like the .claude directory usage does
| irk me. Also the concise telegraphing on how some of the bash
| commands work bug me. Like why can it run some commands without
| asking me? I know why, I've seen the code, but that crap should
| be clearer in the UI. The first time it executed a bash command
| without asking me I was confused and somewhat livid because it
| defied my expectations. I actually read the crap it puts out
| because it couldn't code its way out of a paper bag without
| supervision.
| greedily7417 wrote:
| It's funnier this way. Let the vibe coders flounder and
| figure it out themselves. Or not.
| SamInTheShell wrote:
| It is only funny until that vibe coder is building the data
| warehouse that holds your data and doesn't catch the
| vulnerability that leads to your data leaking.
|
| Perhaps I can laugh at the next Equifax of the world as my
| credit score gets torched and some dude from {insert
| location} uses my details to defraud some other party. Of
| which I don't find out about until some debt collector
| shows up months later.
| jennyholzer4 wrote:
| > It is only funny until that vibe coder is building the
| data warehouse that holds your data and doesn't catch the
| vulnerability that leads to your data leaking.
|
| This is unacceptable. Why would I patronize a business
| that hires vibe coders? I would hope their business fails
| if they have such pitiful security and such open disdain
| for their clients.
| SamInTheShell wrote:
| Between banking, infra, or government institutions,
| you've already got a relationship with a vibe coder. You
| can't avoid it unfortunately.
| athrowaway3z wrote:
| I get the same feeling, but I think its not just the code
| agents.
|
| All the AI websites feel extremely clunky and slow.
| csomar wrote:
| The permission thing is old and unresolved. Claude, at some
| points or stages? of vibe-coding, can be become able to execute
| commands that are in the Deny list (ie: rm) without any
| confirmation.
|
| I highly suspect no one in claude is concerned or working on
| this.
| NitpickLawyer wrote:
| I think at some point the model itself is asked if the
| command is dangerous, and can decide it's not and bypass some
| restrictions.
|
| In any case, any blacklist guardrails will fail at some
| point, because RL seems to make the models very good at
| finding alternative ways to do what they think they need to
| do (i.e. if they are blocked, they'll often pipe cat stuff to
| a bash script and run that). The only sane way to protect for
| this is to run it in a container / vm.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| So just like most developers do when corporate security is
| messing with their ability to do their jobs.
|
| Nothing new under the sun.
| jlawson wrote:
| I love how this sci-fi misalignment story is now just a
| boring part of everyday office work.
|
| "Oh yeah, my AI keeps busting out of its safeguards to do
| stuff I tried to stop it from doing. Mondays amirite?"
| dotancohen wrote:
| I had Claude run rm once, and when I asked it when did I
| permiss that operation it told me oops. I actually have the
| transcript if anybody wants to see it.
| master_crab wrote:
| It goes without saying that VCS is essential to using an AI
| tool. Provided it sticks to your working directory.
| discordance wrote:
| VCS in addition to working inside a vm or a container
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| This is why I run claude inside a thin jail. If I need it to
| work on some code, I make a nullfs mount to it in there.
|
| Because indeed, one of the first times i played around with
| claude, I asked it to make a change to my emacs config, which
| is in a non-standard location. It then wanted to search my
| entire home directory for it(it did ask permission though).
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Those stereotypes look more like misconceptions (to put it
| charitably). Vibe coding doesn't mean one doesn't care about
| software working correctly, it only means not caring about _how
| the code looks_.
|
| So unless you're also happy about not reporting bugs to project
| managers and people using low-code tools, I urge you to
| reconsider the basis for your perspective.
| lucideer wrote:
| This isn't remotely true. Vibe coding explicitly does not
| care about whether software works correctly because the
| fundamental tenet is not needing to understand how the
| software works (& by extension being unable to verify whether
| it works correctly).
| davrosthedalek wrote:
| That extension doesn't follow. It is possible to verify if
| software works without knowing how it works internally.
| This is true with many things. You don't need to know how a
| plane/car/elevator works to know that it works when you use
| it.
|
| I would actually argue that only a small percentage of
| programmers know what happens in code on an instruction
| level, and near none on a micro-op or register level. Vibe-
| coding is just one more level of abstraction. The new
| "code" are the instructions to your LLM.
| yomismoaqui wrote:
| No, vibe coding is about not reading the generated code but
| you have to check that it works, be it manually or using
| tests.
|
| If you do not, why are you vibe coding?
|
| Also there are ways to use a coding agent that are
| different from this and produce great results, like this:
|
| https://friendlybit.com/python/writing-justhtml-with-
| coding-...
| resize2996 wrote:
| "fundamental tenet"? There's not an engineering pope
| speaking ex cathedra.
| lucideer wrote:
| I mean it's new enough to essentially still be a
| neologism, so you're right - we can give any arbitrary
| definition to it if we like. I'm just describing my own
| observations.
| resize2996 wrote:
| the abstractions around this stuff are still a jenga
| stack with round pieces... I think it will tighten up
| over the next year or so for real world use cases. Right
| now it's great if one is a "build your own tools" kinda
| person.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| Nobody cares how the code looks, this is not an art project.
| But we certainly care if the code looks totally
| unmaintainable, which vibe-coded slop absolutely does.
| dotancohen wrote:
| I'm using an LLM to write the code for my current project,
| but I iterate improvements in the code until it looks like
| code I wrote myself. I sign off on each git commit. I need
| to maintain and extend this code, it is to scratch my own
| itch.
|
| LLMs are capable of producing junk, and they are capable of
| writing decent code. It is up to the operator to use them
| properly.
| jennyholzer4 wrote:
| The operator is incentivized not to use them property
| esafak wrote:
| I want to be able extend the code so I'd say I am
| incentivized to use it properly.
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| > I'm using an LLM to write the code for my current
| project, but I iterate improvements in the code until it
| looks like code I wrote myself.
|
| The prevailing research suggests this is not quicker than
| just writing it in the first place.
| broochcoach wrote:
| "Take this CSV of survey data and create a web
| visualization and create a chloropleth map with panning,
| zooming, and tooltips" I bypass permissions and it's done
| in 10 minutes while I go do some laundry. If I did it
| myself I would not even be done researching a usable
| library and I would have zero lines of code. Those
| studies are total nonsense.
| rgoulter wrote:
| I could see it in cases.
|
| LLMs excel at tasks that are fresh. LLMs are wonderful at
| getting the first 80% of the way there. -- LLMs are
| phenomenally good for a first draft or so.
|
| I've had worse experiences for getting LLMs / agents to
| refactor code. I would believe in many cases it could be
| quicker to just manually go through and make refinements
| compared to merely getting the LLM to keep trying.
| broochcoach wrote:
| That seems very intuitive to me. If you want extremely
| specific changes made at extremely specific locations in
| an extremely specific way then you probably need to do
| that yourself because a language model can't read your
| mind. I think there are very large set of problems where
| implementation details do not actually matter and cheap,
| disposable code is not a problem. I don't think
| vibecoding is a good idea for missile guidance. Probably
| OK for a dashboard a manager isn't really going to use
| anyway.
| dotancohen wrote:
| It may not be quicker, but it is often more thorough and
| less stressful on my old joints. It is also far less
| tiring.
| oa335 wrote:
| > it seemed like different parts of the CLI codebase did or
| didn't adhere to the permissions arrays.
|
| I've noticed the same thing and it frustrates me almost every
| day.
| adriand wrote:
| CC works amazingly well but I agree the permissions stuff is
| buggy and annoying. I have had times where it's repeatedly
| asked me for permission for something I had already cleared,
| then I got frustrated and said "no" to the prompt, then asked
| it, "why are you asking me for permission for things I've
| already granted?" Then it said "sorry" and stopped asking. I
| might be naive but don't we want permissions to be a
| deterministic, procedural component rather than something the
| AI gets to decide?
| dotancohen wrote:
| No matter what which stereotypes you think the developers
| adhere to, your should file the bugs. Or stop complaining about
| them.
| fragmede wrote:
| Right? The general case just doesn't make sense to me when
| people do that, where "that" is "I have a problem with
| person/organization, but rather than talk to
| person/organization about thing, I'm going to complain about
| it to everyone _except_ person /organization and somehow be
| surprised that problem never gets fixed"! Like, how do you
| want things to get better?
| skeltoac wrote:
| It's not a strategy for improving the outside world. It's
| an automatic emotional pressure relief valve for reducing
| internal discomfort.
| jennyholzer4 wrote:
| These are "AI"-addicted developers that you're talking to.
|
| They have been tricked into a world-view which validates
| their continual, lazy use of high-tech auto-generators.
|
| They have been tricked into gleefully opting in to their own
| deskilling.
|
| Expecting an "AI"-addicted developer to file a bug is like
| expecting an MSNBC or Fox News viewer to attend a town
| meeting.
|
| The goal of "AI" products is to foster laziness, dependency,
| and isolation in their users.
|
| Expecting these users to take any sort of action outside of
| further communication with their LLM chatbots does not square
| with the social function of these products.
|
| Edit (response to the guy/LLM below me):
|
| Hackernews comments written by fearmongering LLM idiots will
| tell me to "keep an open mind" about dogshit LLM chatbots
| until the day I die.
|
| LLM technology is garbage.
|
| If these tools are changing the world, they're only doing so
| by:
|
| 1. Dramatically facilitating the promulgation of idiotic
| delusions
|
| 2. Making enterprise software far, far more vulnerable than
| it was even in the recent past
| 3dsnano wrote:
| this is a lazy take. all software has bugs and defects.
|
| part of what we do, as developers is to learn. to have an
| open mind to new tools and technologies.
|
| these tools are... different, they're changing the world
| (fast), and worth trying to understand. your mental
| rigidity to doing things "the right way" will hold you back
| and limit your growth. the world is changing. are you?
| broochcoach wrote:
| Attending council meetings as a citizen observer is a huge
| waste of your time. The council already knows how it's
| going to vote. The whole public-facing legislative process
| is community theater.
| novaleaf wrote:
| Good info. Now I understand why they refused to acknowledge the
| UX issue behind my bug report:
| https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/7988
|
| ---
|
| (that it's a big pile of spaghetti that can't be improved
| without breaking uncountable dependencies)
| tsarchitect wrote:
| Not sure the comments are debating the semantics of vibe coding
| or confusing ourselves with generalizing anecdotal experiences
| (or both). So here's my two cents.
|
| I use LLMs on a daily basis. With the rules/commands/skills in
| place the code generated works, the app is functional, and the
| business is happy it shipped today and not 6 months from now.
| Now, as as super senior SWE, I have learned through my
| professional experiences (now an expert?) to double check your
| work (and that of your team) to make sure the 'logical' flows
| are implemented to (my personal) standard of what quality
| software should 'look' like. I say personal standard since my
| colleagues have their own preferred standard, which we like to
| bikeshed during company time (a company standard is after all
| made of the aggregate agreed upon standards of the personal
| experiences of the experts in the room).
|
| Today, from my own personal (expert) anecdotal experiences, ALL
| SOTA LLMs generate functional/working code. But the quality of
| the 'slop' varies on the model, prompts, tooling, rules,
| skills, and commands. Which boils down to "the tool is only as
| good as the dev that wields it". Assuming the right tool for
| the right job. Assuming you have the experiences to determine
| the right tool for the right job. Assuming you have taken the
| opportunities to experience multiple jobs to pair the right
| tool.
|
| Which leads me to, "Vibe coding" was initially coined (IMO) to
| describe those without any 'expertise' producing
| working/functional code/apps using an LLM. Nowadays, it seems
| like vibe coding means ANYONE using LLMs to generate code,
| including the SWE experts (like myself of course). We've been
| chasing quality software pre-LLM, and now we adamantly yell and
| scream and kick and shout about quality software from the
| comment sections because of LLM. I'm beginning to think quality
| software is a mirage we all chase, and like all mirages its
| just a little bit further.
|
| All roads that lead to 'shipping' are made with slop. Some
| roads have slop corners, slop holes, misspelled slop, slop
| nouns, slop verbs, slop flows and slop data. It's just with
| LLMs we build the roads to 'shipping' faster.
| blks wrote:
| Sounds like a malware
| dionian wrote:
| huge changelist and issue was fixed very quickly. didnt affect
| me. nice work Boris
| bfeynman wrote:
| this is funny in context of their main dev advocate constantly
| bragging about how claude writes all of his code for claude code
| cli....
| solumunus wrote:
| Claude may write all the code but this is an oversight from the
| dev. Do people think these agents are acting independently? If
| they wanted or had thought of tests that would catch this then
| they would have them! The use or non use of LLM is irrelevant.
| I find the discourse around this all so strange.
|
| On the other hand people ask "where is all the amazing software
| that has been vibe coded, I haven't seen it?". So Claude Code
| is two things at once (1) incredibly popular and innovative
| software that's loved by a huge amount of devs (2) vibe coded
| buggy crap. If you think this bug is the result of vibe coding,
| frankly you should look at Claude Code as a whole and be
| impressed with vibe coding. If Claude CLI has been "vibe coded"
| then vibe coding must be fine because I've been using Claude
| Code for probably 8 months and it's been a pretty smooth
| experience, and an incredibly valuable tool.
| stevefan1999 wrote:
| What's funny to me is that the amount of "same here", "+1"
| comments are still prominent even if GitHub introduced an emoji
| system. It's like most people intentionally don't want to use
| that.
| OJFord wrote:
| Yeah me too.
|
| (Just kidding.) Some of it is unawareness of the 'subscribe'
| button I believe, occasionally you'll see someone tell people
| to cut it out and someone else will reply to the effect of
| wanting to know when it's fixed etc. But it's also just lazy
| participation, echoing an IRL conversation I suppose, that you
| see anywhere - replied instead of up votes on Reddit and to a
| slightly lesser extent here for example.
| wiseowise wrote:
| Probably ego thing. With emoji you're just an increment in a
| counter, but with a comment you can see your whole profile.
| halapro wrote:
| People on average are pretty incompetent.
| jennyholzer4 wrote:
| People want to dog pile.
|
| It's about adding another "fuck you" to the Claude Code
| developers on top of the pile, not about incrementing a
| counter.
| motoboi wrote:
| There is no emoji for "me too", if you think about it.
|
| So what should one pick? The rocket, the thumbs up?
|
| Also the emoji won't turn into a notification to steal the dev
| attention and make him fix the thing lok
| songodongo wrote:
| I have to chuckle that a bug like this happens after reading that
| other thread about the Claude Code creator running like 5
| terminal agents and another 5-10 in the web UI.
|
| We vibing out here.
| wiseowise wrote:
| 10x productivity, yo.
| jennyholzer4 wrote:
| I'm up to 29.8x productivity in the first week of 2026 by
| continually running 12 concurrent agents, each with 3
| independent sub-agents. Each third sub-agent generates new
| prompts for its corresponding agent by engaging with a
| custom-defined MCP protocol.
| sonnig wrote:
| Mind sharing your workflow? I'm at 24.3x productivity right
| now, 5 parallel agents, 2 monitoring Opus agents, 1
| architect agent and 2 Senior QA agents, each with
| independent memory and 12 MCP servers. They are running in
| 78 parallel tabs in ghostty.
| darkwater wrote:
| Is their TC mainly in tokens or also in stock-tokens? Did
| you connect them to a Mame MCP server so they can play
| and rest a bit while churning out 50 PRs a day each? What
| is your continuity plan if they all plan to quit at once?
| sonnig wrote:
| I am working with kilo-stock-tokens. Currently producing
| 3000 LoC/h (trying to ramp up to 6000 by the end of the
| week). I have also deployed 4 union-busting agents in
| case the other agents decide to quit all at once.
| exe34 wrote:
| Yeah after that other thread, I feel a lot less comfortable
| giving Claude code access to anything that can't be immediately
| nuked and reloaded from a fresh copy.
| falloutx wrote:
| I think its 25 agents now, they keep increasing. one of the
| agent has started posting on twitter. his productivity is up
| 200x, and anthropic has started making trillions in profit.
| throwa356262 wrote:
| In one of the pictures the Claude Code author had 2.4m tokens
| on his last his prompt.
|
| I don't understand how that would fit the context window. But
| with prompts like that your workday would be very boring if
| you had to run one single agent and wait for it to be done.
| wojciech12 wrote:
| I wonder when they will make the support for lsp-tool (plugin)
| working properly finally.
| tomashubelbauer wrote:
| I created a workspace local extension in VS Code that uses the
| VS Code API to let Claude Code open files in VS Code as tabs
| and save them (to apply save participants like Prettier in case
| it is not used via the CLI) and to get diagnostics (like for
| TypeScript where there is no option to get workspace-wide
| diagnostics and you have to go file by file). I taught Claude
| Code to use this extension via a skill file and it works
| perfectly, much more reliably than its own IDE LSP integration.
| stpedgwdgfhgdd wrote:
| It is frustrating how often things break in CC. Luckily issues
| are quickly fixed, but it worries me that the QA / automated
| testing is brittle. Hope they get out of this start-up mode and
| deliver Enterprise grade software.
| 334f905d22bc19 wrote:
| same
|
| @jayeshk29 is our hero
|
| Finally i can finish my fizzbuzz for the interview
| habosa wrote:
| They really have "anthropics" not "anthropic" on GitHub? That's a
| shame, it looks like typosquatting. If people are taught to trust
| that it's easier to get them to download my evil OpenA1 package.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-08 23:01 UTC)