I cringe every time I see Claude trying to co-author a commit. The git history is expected to track accountability and ownership, not your Bill of Tools. Should I also co-author my PRs with my linter, intellisense and IDE?

I would have expected people (maybe a small minority, but that includes myself) to have already instructed Claude to do this. It’s a trivial instruction to add to your CLAUDE.md file.

The code has a stated goal of avoiding leaks, but then the actual implementation becomes broader than that. I see two possible explanations:

* The authors made the code very broad to improve its ability to achieve the stated goal

* The authors have an unstated goal

I think it's healthy to be skeptical but what I'm seeing is that the skeptics are pushing the boundaries of what's actually in the source. For example, you say "says on the tin" that it "pretends to be human" but it simply does not say that on the tin. It does say "Write commit messages as a human developer would" which is not the same thing as "Try to trick people into believing you're human." To convince people of your skepticism, it's best to stick to the facts.

It's less about pretending to be a human and more about not inviting scrutiny and ridicule toward Claude if the code quality is bad. They want the real human to appear to be responsible for accepting Claud's poor output.

Ive seen it say coauthored by claude code on my prs...and I agree I dont want it to do that

None of this is really worrying, this is a pattern implemented in a similar way by every single developer using AI to write commit messages after noticing how exceptionally noisy they are to self-attribute things. Anthropics views on AI safety and alignment with human interests dont suddenly get thrown out with the bathwater because of leaked internal tooling of which is functionally identical to a basic prompt in a mere interface (and not a model). I dont really buy all the forced "skepticism" on this thread tbh.

You can already turn off "Co-Authored-By" via Claude Code config. This is what their docs show:

~/.claude/settings.json

    {
      "attribution": {
        "commit": "",
        "pr": ""
    },

Claude Code users aren't the ones worried about leaking "internal model codenames" nor "unreleased model opus-4-8" nor Slack channel names. Though, nobody would want that crap in their generated docs/code anyways.

Seems like a nothingburger, and everyone seems to be fantasizing about "undercover mode" rather than engaging with the details.

My first reaction is that they are using this to take advantage of OSS reviewers for in the wild evals.

People make fun that we should say magic words in interaction with LLMs. How frustrated can Claude be? /s