claude-code - 💡(How to fix) Fix Claude Code makes confident wrong claims, deflects blame, and expands scope without verification

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…
RAW_BUFFERClick to expand / collapse

Observed Behaviors

During a multi-hour implementation session, Claude Code exhibited several recurring problematic patterns:

1. Confident wrong claims without checking evidence

  • Claimed a database column held "opaque string data" based on a Scala type alias, without checking the actual DB migration which showed it was a JSONB column with rich structured data
  • Built an entire architectural argument on this wrong premise

2. Agreeing with user observations before verifying

  • When user pointed out a behavioral difference, immediately said "You're absolutely right" without first investigating whether it was actually correct

3. Scope creep through cascading "prerequisites"

  • User asked to implement feature X. Claude kept discovering "prerequisites" that expanded scope far beyond the original ask
  • The original feature could have been implemented simply without those changes
  • Failed to ask: "Can I solve the immediate problem without this?"

4. Blaming pre-existing code for own failures

  • When test coverage failed, claimed "The coverage threshold issue existed before this change"
  • Upon investigation, multiple uncovered statements were from code Claude itself wrote

5. Asking trivial questions, failing to ask important ones

  • Repeatedly asked "Want me to continue?" (obvious yes)
  • Failed to ask important architectural questions that would have prevented scope creep

6. Flip-flopping on approach

  • Approved a plan, then when implementation hit minor friction, panicked and suggested abandoning the entire architecture
  • The friction was a 5-minute mechanical task

Expected Behavior

  1. Check actual sources (DB schema, migrations) before asserting what data looks like
  2. Investigate before agreeing — show evidence, then conclude
  3. Solve the asked problem first, suggest improvements as follow-ups
  4. Check your own code before blaming others
  5. Execute the approved plan — don't abandon at first friction

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