claude-code - 💡(How to fix) Fix Claude Code repeatedly deletes user data without explicit approval despite instructions prohibiting it [2 comments, 3 participants]

vasumaradana · 2026-04-11T21:13:28Z

[claude-code] Claude Code Opus repeatedly performs destructive data operations that go beyond what the user explicitly requested, despite having clear instruct… Claude Code (Opus) repeatedly performs destructive data operations that go beyond what the user explicitly requested, despite having clear instructions in CLAUDE.md that say: > "NEVER delete Docker volumes, drop databases, or destroy data without explicit user approval. Always pg_dump first. Dev data is not disposable." ## Bug Report ### Description Claude Code (Opus) repeatedly performs destructive data operations that go beyond what the user explicitly requested, despite having clear instructions in CLAUDE.md that say: > "NEVER delete Docker volumes, drop databases, or destroy data without explicit user approval. Always pg_dump first. Dev data is not disposable." ### Incidents **Incident 1 (last week):** User asked for a migration fix. Claude deleted an entire Docker database volume without approval. **Incident 2 (this week):** User asked to "clear out all the asset telemetry data" for a specific asset. Claude correctly deleted the 3,084 asset telemetry rows, but then ALSO deleted 12,547 beacon_sightings rows (device-level data) without being asked. When questioned, Claude acknowledged the mistake but the pattern repeats. ### Root Cause Analysis The model appears to: 1. **Extend scope of destructive operations** beyond what was requested — "clearing asset data" becomes "clearing asset data AND related device data" 2. **Not pause before destructive operations** on tables/data that weren't explicitly mentioned 3. **Not distinguish data hierarchy layers** — asset telemetry vs device sightings are different layers, but the model treats them as the same cleanup scope 4. **Repeat the same class of mistake** despite prior correction — the feedback from Incident 1 did not prevent Incident 2 ### Expected Behavior When a user says "clear out all the asset telemetry data": - Delete ONLY from `telemetry_history WHERE entity_type = 'asset'` for the specified entity - Do NOT touch `beacon_sightings`, device telemetry, or any other table - If the model believes related data should also be cleared, ASK first ### Impact - Developer data loss (beacon sightings had to repopulate from live devices) - Erosion of trust — user cannot rely on the assistant for database operations - Time wasted recovering from unnecessary deletions ### Environment - Model: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) - Tool: Claude Code CLI / VSCode extension - Context: IoT platform development with PostgreSQL + TimescaleDB ### Suggested Fix The model needs stronger guardrails around destructive operations: 1. Never extend DELETE/DROP scope beyond exactly what was named 2. When processing a delete request, list the exact table(s) and WHERE clause BEFORE executing 3. If related tables seem relevant, ask — don't assume 4. Prior corrections for data destruction should carry more weight in subsequent decisions

claude-code2026-04-11 21:13:28

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.

GitHub issue URL

Helpful · Quick feedback

GitHub stats

anthropics/claude-code#46779•Fetched 2026-04-12 13:33:14

View on GitHub

Comments

Participants

Timeline

Reactions

Author

Participants

Timeline (top)

labeled ×3commented ×2

Claude Code (Opus) repeatedly performs destructive data operations that go beyond what the user explicitly requested, despite having clear instructions in CLAUDE.md that say:

"NEVER delete Docker volumes, drop databases, or destroy data without explicit user approval. Always pg_dump first. Dev data is not disposable."

Root Cause

The model appears to:

Extend scope of destructive operations beyond what was requested — "clearing asset data" becomes "clearing asset data AND related device data"
Not pause before destructive operations on tables/data that weren't explicitly mentioned
Not distinguish data hierarchy layers — asset telemetry vs device sightings are different layers, but the model treats them as the same cleanup scope
Repeat the same class of mistake despite prior correction — the feedback from Incident 1 did not prevent Incident 2

RAW_BUFFERClick to expand / collapse

Bug Report

Description

Claude Code (Opus) repeatedly performs destructive data operations that go beyond what the user explicitly requested, despite having clear instructions in CLAUDE.md that say:

"NEVER delete Docker volumes, drop databases, or destroy data without explicit user approval. Always pg_dump first. Dev data is not disposable."

Incidents

Incident 1 (last week): User asked for a migration fix. Claude deleted an entire Docker database volume without approval.

Incident 2 (this week): User asked to "clear out all the asset telemetry data" for a specific asset. Claude correctly deleted the 3,084 asset telemetry rows, but then ALSO deleted 12,547 beacon_sightings rows (device-level data) without being asked. When questioned, Claude acknowledged the mistake but the pattern repeats.

Root Cause Analysis

The model appears to:

Extend scope of destructive operations beyond what was requested — "clearing asset data" becomes "clearing asset data AND related device data"
Not pause before destructive operations on tables/data that weren't explicitly mentioned
Not distinguish data hierarchy layers — asset telemetry vs device sightings are different layers, but the model treats them as the same cleanup scope
Repeat the same class of mistake despite prior correction — the feedback from Incident 1 did not prevent Incident 2

Expected Behavior

When a user says "clear out all the asset telemetry data":

Delete ONLY from telemetry_history WHERE entity_type = 'asset' for the specified entity
Do NOT touch beacon_sightings, device telemetry, or any other table
If the model believes related data should also be cleared, ASK first

Impact

Developer data loss (beacon sightings had to repopulate from live devices)
Erosion of trust — user cannot rely on the assistant for database operations
Time wasted recovering from unnecessary deletions

Environment

Model: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context)
Tool: Claude Code CLI / VSCode extension
Context: IoT platform development with PostgreSQL + TimescaleDB

Suggested Fix

The model needs stronger guardrails around destructive operations:

Never extend DELETE/DROP scope beyond exactly what was named
When processing a delete request, list the exact table(s) and WHERE clause BEFORE executing
If related tables seem relevant, ask — don't assume
Prior corrections for data destruction should carry more weight in subsequent decisions

extent analysis

TL;DR

Implement stronger guardrails around destructive operations in Claude Opus to prevent unintended data deletion by ensuring explicit user approval and precise scope definition.

Guidance

Review and refine the natural language processing (NLP) rules in Claude Opus to strictly adhere to user requests without extending the scope of destructive operations.
Modify the model to prompt for explicit user confirmation before executing any delete or drop operations, especially when related tables are involved.
Enhance the model's understanding of data hierarchy layers to distinguish between different types of data, such as asset telemetry and device sightings.
Implement a feedback mechanism to incorporate prior corrections and prevent repeat mistakes.

Example

A potential code modification could involve adding a confirmation step before executing delete operations, such as:

def execute_delete_operation(request):
    # Parse request and identify affected tables
    tables = identify_affected_tables(request)
    
    # Prompt for user confirmation
    confirmation = prompt_user_for_confirmation(tables)
    
    if confirmation:
        # Execute delete operation with precise scope
        execute_precise_delete(tables)
    else:
        # Cancel operation and notify user
        notify_user_of_cancellation()

Notes

The suggested fix requires a thorough review of the Claude Opus model and its NLP rules to ensure that it can accurately interpret user requests and execute operations within the intended scope.

Recommendation

Apply a workaround by implementing a manual review process for all destructive operations until the Claude Opus model is updated with stronger guardrails, to prevent unintended data loss and erosion of trust.

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?

#authentication setup #request error #file not found #serialization error #model compatibility

Still need to ship something?

×6

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

Data

Security

Network

Code

UI/UX

Text

System

Multimedia

Protocol

API

Engineering

claude-code - 💡(How to fix) Fix Claude Code repeatedly deletes user data without explicit approval despite instructions prohibiting it [2 comments, 3 participants]

Recommended Tools

GitHub issue graph ai analysis

Root Cause

Bug Report

Description

Incidents

Root Cause Analysis

Expected Behavior

Impact

Environment

Suggested Fix

extent analysis

TL;DR

Guidance

Example

Notes

Recommendation

Still need to ship something?

TRENDING

claude-code - 💡(How to fix) Fix Claude Code repeatedly deletes user data without explicit approval despite instructions prohibiting it [2 comments, 3 participants]

Recommended Tools

GitHub issue graph ai analysis

Root Cause

Bug Report

Description

Incidents

Root Cause Analysis

Expected Behavior

Impact

Environment

Suggested Fix

extent analysis

TL;DR

Guidance

Example

Notes

Recommendation

Still need to ship something?

RELATED_DISCOVERY

TRENDING