You could in theory fully review Claude Code.

But even that wouldn't be enough because LLMs are nondeterministic, and these kinds of issues are the inevitable results.

Only a mechanical, deterministic failsafe can protect you from it.

▲

what a day ago | parent [-]

> You could in theory fully review Claude Code.

Can you point me to the CC source code?

▲

kstenerud a day ago | parent | next [-]

The CC source code leak was contained many months ago. But Claude is perfectly happy to decompile its own code if you ask the right way. It'll even patch the binary for you.

Regardless, It's kinda silly to keep the harness code hidden. There aren't any valuable secrets in there.

But there are rules & procedures to follow, so...

▲

what a day ago | parent [-]

Well then I have to use Claude before being able to review the source? Bit of a chicken and egg situation.

I also have to trust its “decompilation” is accurate.

	▲	ipaddr 14 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Or use a different llm or do it yourself manually.
	▲	kstenerud a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You're absolutely right! There's no way around this problem — and no amount of creative thought could ever solve it. All hail the agent!

▲

Betelbuddy 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Its Vibe Coding land here...you dont look at the code....