11 ms·
There are now several comments that (incorrectly?) interpret the undercover mode as only hiding internal information. Excerpts from the actual prompt[0]: NEV
by mzajc 7mo ago
There are now several comments that (incorrectly?) interpret the undercover mode as only hiding internal information. Excerpts from the actual prompt[0]:
NEVER include in commit messages or PR descriptions:
- The phrase "Claude Code" or any mention that you are an AI
- Co-Authored-By lines or any other attribution
BAD (never write these):
- 1-shotted by claude-opus-4-6
- Generated with Claude Code
- Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <…>
This very much sounds like it does what it says on the tin, i.e. stays undercover and pretends to be a human. It's especially worrying that the prompt is explicitly written for contributions to public repositories.
[0]: https://github.com/chatgptprojects/claude-code/blob/642c7f944bbe5f7e57c05d756ab7fa7c9c5035cc/src/utils/undercover.ts#L39 https://github.com/chatgptprojects/claude-code/blob/642c7f94...
- otterley 7mo agoI 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.
- arcanemachiner 7mo agoIt's a config setting (probably the same end result though): https://code.claude.com/docs/en/settings#attribution-settings https://code.claude.com/docs/en/settings#attribution-setting...
- schappim 7mo agoI guess our system prompt didn't work. If folks are having to add it manually into their own Claude.md files...
- otterley 7mo agoMy mistake - it was the configuration setting that did it. Nevertheless, you can control many other aspects of its behavior by tuning the CLAUDE.md prompt.
- schappim 7mo agoTypo from speech to text, corrected: “I guess Anthropic’s system prompt didn't work. If folks are having to add it manually into their own Claude.md files...”
- dboreham 7mo agoI always assumed that if I tried to tell it, that it'd say "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that"
- lawrjone 7mo agoWe use CC to power some of our code features and override this setting so we can provide our own attribution. So there are several legit reasons to permit this.
- tacone 7mo agoIt doesn't work so well in my experience. I am currently wrapping (or asking the LLM to wrap) the commit message prompt in a script call. 1. the LLM is instructed on how to write a commit message and never include co-authorship 2. the LLM is asked to produce a commit message 3. the LLM output is parsed by a script which removes co-authorship if the LLM chooses to include it nevertheless
- tacone 7mo agoAlso for future reference, Copilot - specifically - includes a configuration flag to toggle the co-authorship (see `copilot help config`): > `includeCoAuthoredBy`: whether to instruct the agent to add a Co-authored-by trailer to git commits; defaults to `true`. This means that, if you don't explicitely configure otherwise, the LLM is specifically instructed to include co-authorship in its higher level instructions.
- andoando 7mo agoIve seen it say coauthored by claude code on my prs...and I agree I dont want it to do that
- dmd 7mo agoSo turn it off. "includeCoAuthoredBy": false, in your settings.json.
- nullderef 7mo agoThey changed it to `attribution`, but yes you can customize this
- Pxtl 7mo agoWhy not? What's wrong with honesty?
- dec0dedab0de 7mo agoYeah I much prefer it commit the agent, and I would also like if it committed the model I was using at the time.
- andoando 7mo agoI guess Im sometimes dishonest when it suits me
- pc86 7mo agoIt's only dishonest not to include Claude in commit/PR attribution if it's also dishonest not to include StackOverflow, or VSCode, or VIM, or Windows, or any of the other tools you used to complete the work!
- flykespice 7mo agoThat's a so invalid analogy, editors are effectively tools just like as a hammer because they require constant human input to produce something, the human is in constant control over the whole production process so they don't need to give attribution to the individual tools they used to build a house... Unlike a black magic box where you just tell it to build something and it does all the production for you while you sit back.
- petcat 7mo agoIt'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.
- otterley 7mo agoThat’s ultimately the right answer, isn’t it? Bad code is bad code, whether a human wrote it all, or whether an agent assisted in the endeavor.
- abustamam 7mo agoYeah in my team everyone knows everyone is using LLMs. We just have a rule. Don't commit slop. Using an LLM is no excuse for committing bad code.
- Stromgren 7mo agoThat’s how I’d want it to be honestly. LLMs are tools and I’d hope we’re going to keep the people using them responsible. Just like any other tools we use.
- vrosas 7mo agoIt’s also pretty damn obvious when LLMs write code. Nobody out here commenting every method in perfect punctuation and grammar.
- poopmonster 7mo agoskill issue
- danbolt 7mo agoPlease elaborate, poopmonster! What sort of skills are required to expertly use an LLM?
- hombre_fatal 7mo agoYou can already turn off "Co-Authored-By" via Claude Code config. This is what their docs show: ~/.claude/settings.json { "attribution": { "commit": "", "pr": "" }, The rest of the prompt is pretty clear that it's talking about internal use. 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.
- nateoda 7mo agoMy first reaction is that they are using this to take advantage of OSS reviewers for in the wild evals.
- zen928 7mo agoNone 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.
- sixtyj 7mo agoPeople make fun that we should say magic words in interaction with LLMs. How frustrated can Claude be? /s
- manbitesdog 7mo agoI 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?
- Sharlin 7mo agoYou have copyright to a commit authored by you. You (almost certainly) don't have copyright (nobody has) to a commit authored by Claude.
- _heimdall 7mo agoAnthropic could at least make a compelling case for the copyright. It becomes legally challenging with regards to ownership if I ever use work equipment for a personal project. If it later takes off they could very well try to claim ownership in its entirety simply because I ran a test once (yes, there's a while silicon valley season for it). I don't know if they'd win, but Anthropic absolutely would be able to claim the creation of that code was done on their hardware. Obviously we aren't employees of theirs, though we are customers that very likely never read what we agreed to in a signup flow.
- windexh8er 7mo agoI think all you need to do is claim that your girlfriend is your laptop. /s
- CobrastanJorji 7mo agoUsing work equipment for a personal project only matters because you signed a contract giving all of your IP to your employer for anything you did with (or sometimes without) your employer's equipment. Anthropic's user agreement does not have a similar agreement.
- _heimdall 7mo agoMy point was that they could make a compelling case though, not that they would win. I don't know of ant precedent where the code was literally generated on someone else's system. Its an open question whether that implies any legal right to the work and I could pretty easily see a court accepting the case.
- peacebeard 7mo agoThe 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.
- mzajc 7mo agoBy "says on the tin," I was referring to the name ("undercover mode") and the instruction to "not blow your cover." If pretending to be a human is not the cover here, what is? Additionally, does Claude code still admit that it's a LLM when this prompt is active as you suggest, or does it pretend to be a human like the prompt tells it to?
- cat_plus_plus 7mo agoWhy are you assuming the actual implementation was authored by a human?
- peacebeard 7mo agoMy comment makes no such assumption.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- riedel 7mo agoNo problem at all in the EU, as the user would either would need to review and redact the output or would need to put a transparency note up by law [0]. I am sure that Anthropic with their high ethical standards will educate their users ... [0] https://ai-act-service-desk.ec.europa.eu/en/ai-act/article-50 https://ai-act-service-desk.ec.europa.eu/en/ai-act/article-5...
- mynameisvlad 7mo agoSince when is code considered > which is published with the purpose of informing the public on matters of public interest From your link, that's the only case where text needs to be attributed to AI.
- Orygin 7mo agoCode may not be, but opening a Merge Request undercover may be unlawful: > Providers shall ensure that AI systems intended to interact directly with natural persons are designed and developed in such a way that the natural persons concerned are informed that they are interacting with an AI system
- jonnybgood 7mo agoThat merge request would be AI generated content. You wouldn't be interacting directly with the AI system that opened it.
- Orygin 7mo agoDepends if it's a closed loop agent. If the agent opens the request, writes the body and is triggered by an answer on the MR, then I'd expect the law to cover this.
- mynameisvlad 7mo agoWhat AI service are you providing with said MR?
- cfbradford 7mo agoDoes this apply to their internal use as well? They can really only claim DMCA status on the leaked code if it was authored by humans. Claude attribution in their internal git history would make a strong case that they do not in fact own the copyright to Claude Code itself and are therefore abusing the DMCA system to protect leaked trade secrets rather than protect copyright.
- zgeor 7mo agoGenuine question: why can they only claim DMCA if the code is written by humans? Does DMCA specify the method of production?
- rainsil 7mo agoAccording to the US Copyright Office, fully AI-generated works aren’t eligible for copyright because they don’t have human authors. They’re in the public domain by default. See: https://library.osu.edu/site/copyright/2026/02/06/artificial-intelligence-and-the-public-domain/ https://library.osu.edu/site/copyright/2026/02/06/artificial...
- pc86 7mo agoWhat constitutes "fully AI-generated" when you're in an edit loop between an agent and a human?
- justinclift 7mo agoIt seems like it's an active area of legal thought (IANAL though). Recent relevant discussion about this in the chardet repo between the chardet maintainer who relicensed the chardet code and Richard Fontana, a well regarded lawyer US IP lawyer who's worked for Red Hat (now IBM) for decades: https://github.com/chardet/chardet/issues/334#issuecomment-4063199942 https://github.com/chardet/chardet/issues/334#issuecomment-4... My take away from the conversation there is that being in an edit loop, where the files are AI generated through your control rather than directly editing the files yourself, means the files are then "AI authored" for copyright protection purposes rather than yourself. But I double stress, I'm not a lawyer so may have misunderstood things radically.
- RA2lover 7mo agoThere's a more worrying part: It refers to unreleased versions of Claude in more detail than released versions. For a company calling chinese companies out for distillation attacks on their models, this very much looks like a distillation attack against human maintainers, especially when combined with the frustration detector.
- MeetRickAI 7mo ago[dead]
- zem 7mo agointeresting, I still see "coauthored by..." messages put into my git commits (or was a couple of weeks ago at least)
- shreyssh 7mo ago[flagged]