I had the exact same experience. Claude is not my validation engine, I do not tell it when it has completed. I verify that in the code/project and end the session.

I also got this,

> A useful next habit is to end each correction with a concrete acceptance test, owner artifact, or stop condition: “write it into PROGRESS.md,” “make nix run .#bench fail until this is real,” “rerun this exact command,” or “do not proceed until these two choices are explicit.”

> You already do this well in the biggest penance sessions. Apply it to the smaller ones too.

Which I have found to be counterproductive in my personal work. Current models can generally infer acceptance tests of this level of granularity (not true for larger project-level prompts, but those don't produce good enough code for me yet -- even with specific acceptance criteria).

I also got penalized for using claude in read-only mode for the same validation reason?

> For read-only work, end with one of:

    “turn the top finding into a PR-sized plan”
    “mark these as accepted/rejected/deferred”
    “write a cleanup checklist”
    “give me the exact command I should run safely”
    “stop, no action recommended”

No thanks, I'm literally just exploring the codebase. I don't want any of these.

It's a little sad to be honest, I would actually enjoy a product that helped me improve prompting + ai usage.