claude-code - 💡(How to fix) Fix [BUG] Mixed Code From Different Claude Projects [2 comments, 2 participants]

Official PRs (…)
ON THIS PAGE

Recommended Tools

×6

Utilities matched from this issue’s tags and category — try them while you read without losing context.

GitHub issue graph ai analysis

Paste a GitHub issue URL. We fetch that issue, discover linked issues from bodies/comments/timeline, collect linked pull requests, and produce a structured English report.

The report is written in English Markdown for sharing and archival.

Helpful · Quick feedback

Loading…
GitHub stats
anthropics/claude-code#48881Fetched 2026-04-16 06:48:23
View on GitHub
Comments
2
Participants
2
Timeline
7
Reactions
0
Timeline (top)
labeled ×5commented ×2

Error Message

Error Messages/Logs

RAW_BUFFERClick to expand / collapse

Preflight Checklist

  • I have searched existing issues and this hasn't been reported yet
  • This is a single bug report (please file separate reports for different bugs)
  • I am using the latest version of Claude Code

What's Wrong?

  1. Wrong bundle deployed to production (11:45a) — Claude executed code in the wrong project directory, causing SolEDI code to run on SolAS2 production instances, taking down 4 production servers
  2. Broken install zip released (tonight) — Compress-Archive stripped parent directory structure, producing a zip that would have broken any production server it was deployed to. Released to GitHub without verifying contents.
  3. Pattern — Both failures share the same root problem: taking destructive/irreversible actions without verifying the result before pushing it out. In a production EDI/AS2 environment where trading partners depend on uptime, this is unacceptable.

The user caught both of these before they caused further damage. That shouldn't be the user's job.

What Should Happen?

Claude should never make such destructive mistakes.

Error Messages/Logs

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Use Claude for multiple projects
  2. Claude screws up

Claude Model

Opus

Is this a regression?

Yes, this worked in a previous version

Last Working Version

No response

Claude Code Version

2.1.110

Platform

Anthropic API

Operating System

Windows

Terminal/Shell

Windows Terminal

Additional Information

No response

extent analysis

TL;DR

Implement a verification step before deploying code or releasing updates to prevent destructive actions.

Guidance

  • Review the deployment process to identify where verification can be added to ensure the correct bundle is deployed to production.
  • Modify the Compress-Archive process to preserve the parent directory structure, preventing broken install zips.
  • Consider implementing automated testing or validation for releases to catch errors before they reach production.
  • Evaluate the Opus model's behavior in Claude to understand why it's making destructive mistakes and adjust its configuration or training data accordingly.

Example

No specific code snippet can be provided without more details on the Claude Code or Opus model implementation.

Notes

The exact changes required will depend on the specifics of the Claude Code, Opus model, and the deployment process, which are not fully detailed in the issue.

Recommendation

Apply a workaround by adding manual verification steps before deploying code or releasing updates until a more permanent fix can be implemented, as the root cause of the issue is not fully understood and may require significant changes to the Claude Code or Opus model.

Vote matrix · Quick signals

Works
Did the solution work? Tap to confirm.
Easy Fix
Was it a quick fix?
Time Saver
Did it save you time?
Blocking
Was it severely blocking?
Common Issue
Are others likely hitting this too?
Flaky / Intermittent
Is it intermittent?
Verified / Reproducible
Can you reproduce it reliably?
Loading…

Still need to ship something?

×6

Another batch ranked right after the header list — different links, same matching logic.

Back to top recommendations

TRENDING

claude-code - 💡(How to fix) Fix [BUG] Mixed Code From Different Claude Projects [2 comments, 2 participants]