I'm pursuing a different approach: instead of isolating where Claude runs, intercept what it wants to do.

Shannot[0] captures intent before execution. Scripts run in a PyPy sandbox that intercepts all system calls - commands and file writes get logged but don't happen. You review in a TUI, approve what's safe, then it actually executes.

The trade-off vs VMs: VMs let Claude do anything in isolation, Shannot lets Claude propose changes to your real system with human approval. Different use cases - VMs for agentic coding, whereas this is for "fix my server" tasks where you want the changes applied but reviewed first.

There's MCP integration for Claude, remote execution via SSH, checkpoint/rollback for undoing mistakes.

Feedback greatly appreciated!

[0] https://github.com/corv89/shannot

▲

horsawlarway 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm struggling to see how this resolves the problem the author has. I still think there's value in this approach, but it feels to be in the same thrust as the built in controls that already exist in claude code.

The problem with this approach (unless I'm misunderstanding - entirely possible!) is that it still blocks the agent on the first need for approval.

What I think most folks actually want (or at least what I want) is to allow the agent to explore a space, including exploring possible dead ends that require permissions/access, without stopping until the task is finished.

So if the agent is trying to "fix a server" it might suggest installing or removing a package. That suggestion blocks future progress.

Until a human comes in and says "yes - do it" or "no - try X instead" it will sit there doing nothing.

If instead it can just proceed, observe that the package doesn't resolve the issue, and continue exploring other solutions immediately, you save a whole lot of time.

▲

corv 13 hours ago | parent [-]

You're right that blocking on every operation would defeat the purpose! Shannot is able to auto-approve safe operations for this reason (e.g. read-only, immutable)

So the agent can freely explore, check logs, list files, inspect service status. It only blocks when it wants to change something (install a package, write a config, restart a service).

Also worth noting: Shannot operates on entire scripts, not individual commands. The agent writes a complete program, the sandbox captures everything it wants to do during a dry run, then you review the whole batch at once. Claude Code's built-in controls interrupt at each command whereas Shannot interrupts once per script with a full picture of intent.

That said, you're pointing at a real limitation: if the fix genuinely requires a write to test a hypothesis, you're back to blocking. The agent can't speculatively install a package, observe it didn't help, and roll back autonomously.

For that use case, the OP's VM approach is probably better. Shannot is more suited to cases where you want changes applied to the real system but reviewed first.

Definitely food for thought though. A combined approach might be the right answer. VM/scratch space where the agent can freely test hypotheses, then human-in-the-loop to apply those conclusions to production systems.

	▲	horsawlarway 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		yeah, I think the combo approach definitely has the most appeal: - Spin up a vm with an image of the real target device. - Let the agent act freely in the vm until the task is resolved, but capture and record all dangerous actions - Review & replay those actions on the real machine My issue is that for any real task, an agent without feedback mechanisms is essentially worthless. You have to have some sort of structured "this is what success looks like, here's how you check" target for it. A human in the loop can act as that feedback, which is in line with how claude code works by default (you define success by approving actions and giving feedback on status), but requiring a human in the loop also slows it down a bunch - you can end up ping-ponging between terminals trying to approve actions and review the current status.

▲

charcircuit 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>commands and file writes get logged but don't happen. You review in a TUI, approve what's safe, then it actually executes.

This what claude already does out of the box.

▲

bigwheels 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Very cool, this sounds similar in spirit to Leash (https://github.com/strongdm/leash), especially the mac-native system extension mode of Leash (although AFAIU Leash doesn't currently have full interactive-approval mode).

Nice work!

▲

Retr0id 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Very clever name!

	▲	corv 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Thank you, good to know it landed :)