By the way, if you go to https://github.com/claude and "block this user", every Github repo you visit containing code credited to Claude will actually have a warning sigil
-
@emjonaitis The .claude directory is, *as far as I know* (again, this is partially assumptions) configuration for claude to help it work with the codebase. Anyone who adds such a directory is essentially *inviting* claude commits. However technically they might not be using it to create code, they technically could be using it to answer questions about the codebase. Technically. One assumes this results in as much global warming as using it to write code however.
@mcc @emjonaitis For context this flags people using agentic coding, i.e., having Claude code running on your machine, actively going through your folders and making changes. If they allow Claude to commit, it will do so under its own name unless disabled. This is the same with Cursor and Gemini.
The .claude folder in repos means they're using Claude to write the code; it's a per-project config file for the tool. It's similar to a .cursor file; it means it was used to write the code and is a better indicator than the co-authored commit.
-
By the way, if you go to https://github.com/claude and "block this user", every Github repo you visit containing code credited to Claude will actually have a warning sigil
CF
@mcc Holly...
-
By the way, if you go to https://github.com/claude and "block this user", every Github repo you visit containing code credited to Claude will actually have a warning sigil
CF
Additional notes (1 of 3)
mcc (@mcc@mastodon.social)
@emjonaitis@mathstodon.xyz The marker appears whenever a git commit is created with the "co-authored-by" label. This is something claude can be configured to not create: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/settings#:~:text=Claude%20Code%22%2C%20%22pr%22%3A%20%22%22%7D-,includecoauthoredby,-Deprecated%3A%20Use%20attribution Moreover, one assumes that this only occurs when claude actually *performs the commit*. I would assume there are means of using claude where claude changes the code on disk and then the co-authored-by does not appear. Unfortunately, I don't know how to get an answer to that question without talking to a claude user
Mastodon (mastodon.social)
-
Additional notes (1 of 3)
mcc (@mcc@mastodon.social)
@emjonaitis@mathstodon.xyz The marker appears whenever a git commit is created with the "co-authored-by" label. This is something claude can be configured to not create: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/settings#:~:text=Claude%20Code%22%2C%20%22pr%22%3A%20%22%22%7D-,includecoauthoredby,-Deprecated%3A%20Use%20attribution Moreover, one assumes that this only occurs when claude actually *performs the commit*. I would assume there are means of using claude where claude changes the code on disk and then the co-authored-by does not appear. Unfortunately, I don't know how to get an answer to that question without talking to a claude user
Mastodon (mastodon.social)
Additional notes (2 of 3)
Sparrow (@kstrlworks@techhub.social)
@mcc@mastodon.social @emjonaitis@mathstodon.xyz For context this flags people using agentic coding, i.e., having Claude code running on your machine, actively going through your folders and making changes. If they allow Claude to commit, it will do so under its own name unless disabled. This is the same with Cursor and Gemini. The .claude folder in repos means they're using Claude to write the code; it's a per-project config file for the tool. It's similar to a .cursor file; it means it was used to write the code and is a better indicator than the co-authored commit.
TechHub (techhub.social)
-
Additional notes (2 of 3)
Sparrow (@kstrlworks@techhub.social)
@mcc@mastodon.social @emjonaitis@mathstodon.xyz For context this flags people using agentic coding, i.e., having Claude code running on your machine, actively going through your folders and making changes. If they allow Claude to commit, it will do so under its own name unless disabled. This is the same with Cursor and Gemini. The .claude folder in repos means they're using Claude to write the code; it's a per-project config file for the tool. It's similar to a .cursor file; it means it was used to write the code and is a better indicator than the co-authored commit.
TechHub (techhub.social)
Additional notes (3 of 3)
Sparrow (@kstrlworks@techhub.social)
@mcc@mastodon.social Consider the following as well: https://github.com/cursoragent https://github.com/gemini-code-assist Copilot doesn't let you block it unfortunately.
TechHub (techhub.social)
-
@mcc oh no
-
@mcc oh no
-
-
@emjonaitis The .claude directory is, *as far as I know* (again, this is partially assumptions) configuration for claude to help it work with the codebase. Anyone who adds such a directory is essentially *inviting* claude commits. However technically they might not be using it to create code, they technically could be using it to answer questions about the codebase. Technically. One assumes this results in as much global warming as using it to write code however.
@mcc @emjonaitis unless they are using it to poison the agents in question. I'm not poisoning a .claude directiory but I am poisoning a .github/copilot-instructions.md (we actually started getting some copilot-agent spam)
I do think I'd be a lot more hesitant to put an anti-agents node in the root directory since it would be more likely to be seen but not read, but also my software isn't a piece of infrastructure where people are looking at using it in that way. -
By the way, if you go to https://github.com/claude and "block this user", every Github repo you visit containing code credited to Claude will actually have a warning sigil
CF
@mcc what is Claude, some bullshit generator? if so, then it's a not bad idea to block them all, of all kinds. but that works only if you logged in to Github, and this is a spyware of a kind. -
@mcc @emjonaitis unless they are using it to poison the agents in question. I'm not poisoning a .claude directiory but I am poisoning a .github/copilot-instructions.md (we actually started getting some copilot-agent spam)
I do think I'd be a lot more hesitant to put an anti-agents node in the root directory since it would be more likely to be seen but not read, but also my software isn't a piece of infrastructure where people are looking at using it in that way.@kevingranade @emjonaitis yes, that's a frustrating problem, that the directory is slightly more likely to ward off anti-ai folks than it is "code assistants". one thing someone suggested is that if the commit message for the agents file says "block agents" or something the humans might notice this, but that assumes they're using something like github (which i think hides dotfiles anyway) and not just noticing a directory on their computer
-
@kevingranade @emjonaitis yes, that's a frustrating problem, that the directory is slightly more likely to ward off anti-ai folks than it is "code assistants". one thing someone suggested is that if the commit message for the agents file says "block agents" or something the humans might notice this, but that assumes they're using something like github (which i think hides dotfiles anyway) and not just noticing a directory on their computer
@mcc @emjonaitis maybe touch files that will lexicographically sort next to it with names like .claude_DIRECTORY_IS_A_POISON_PILL
-
@mcc @emjonaitis maybe touch files that will lexicographically sort next to it with names like .claude_DIRECTORY_IS_A_POISON_PILL
@kevingranade @emjonaitis Part of the problem is I do not know for a fact whether any one mitigation will be accepted by a "code assistant" without installing and activating a "code assistant", a thing I will not do. So like if it turns out it checks in .claude but not in .claude_poison, then maybe creating the .claude_poison directory creates the inconvenience of directory junk without having the effect I want.
-
@kevingranade @emjonaitis Part of the problem is I do not know for a fact whether any one mitigation will be accepted by a "code assistant" without installing and activating a "code assistant", a thing I will not do. So like if it turns out it checks in .claude but not in .claude_poison, then maybe creating the .claude_poison directory creates the inconvenience of directory junk without having the effect I want.
@mcc @emjonaitis yea, in this specific case it's built into github so you can't *not* have it "installed", but that is a problem.
When we were adding it some people were proposing we add a bunch of different agent files, but when asked weren't actually testing them so what's the point.
Best answer I can come up with is someone takes it on as a infosec-style project and publishes a repo of agent poison pills you can simply incorporate.
-
@lanodan @nick @mcc gdb will most likely also adopting the same wording as binutils due to the overlap usage of bfd.
As far as mesa and other gui runtimes stuff, that needs to be redone. Gcc or something more. Right now from what I remember Mesa depends on older versions of llvm due to api instability too.
With respect to clang-format, there is some work going on dealing with gcc a68 which might be reused with c/c++ frontends too
-
@lanodan @nick @mcc gdb will most likely also adopting the same wording as binutils due to the overlap usage of bfd.
As far as mesa and other gui runtimes stuff, that needs to be redone. Gcc or something more. Right now from what I remember Mesa depends on older versions of llvm due to api instability too.
With respect to clang-format, there is some work going on dealing with gcc a68 which might be reused with c/c++ frontends too
-
-
@porglezomp @lanodan @nick a nice thing about the block warning is assuming microsoft did not code it in an absurd way, the block warning surely applies only to commits in the past of the current branch.
this would be improved if github had not exempted the copilot bot from blocks. they did exempt it from blocks, and if you look in the github feedback forum there's a feature request from me for the day they did it asking them to not-exempt it. oh well…
-
@mcc oh no
-
@porglezomp @lanodan @nick a nice thing about the block warning is assuming microsoft did not code it in an absurd way, the block warning surely applies only to commits in the past of the current branch.
this would be improved if github had not exempted the copilot bot from blocks. they did exempt it from blocks, and if you look in the github feedback forum there's a feature request from me for the day they did it asking them to not-exempt it. oh well…
@mcc @porglezomp @nick Sadly it doesn't shows up in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commits?author=claude
Might be due to Co-Authored-By kind of stuff.
