claude-code - 💡(How to fix) Fix Feature request: confirmation gate for auto-memory writes (autoMemoryConfirmationRequired) [1 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#52706Fetched 2026-04-24 10:41:52
View on GitHub
Comments
0
Participants
1
Timeline
2
Reactions
0
Author
Participants
Timeline (top)
labeled ×2

Request a config option to require explicit user confirmation before auto-memory writes. Current options are binary: autoMemoryEnabled: true (Claude saves when it decides) or autoMemoryEnabled: false (no auto-memory at all). A middle ground is missing.

Root Cause

Request a config option to require explicit user confirmation before auto-memory writes. Current options are binary: autoMemoryEnabled: true (Claude saves when it decides) or autoMemoryEnabled: false (no auto-memory at all). A middle ground is missing.

Fix Action

Fix / Workaround

The prompt-level workaround (adding "don't auto-save without asking" to ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md) is context-level guidance, not a hard gate. Its reliability is the same as any CLAUDE.md rule adherence — see #37857 where Claude ignoring CLAUDE.md instructions is documented as recurring.

RAW_BUFFERClick to expand / collapse

Summary

Request a config option to require explicit user confirmation before auto-memory writes. Current options are binary: autoMemoryEnabled: true (Claude saves when it decides) or autoMemoryEnabled: false (no auto-memory at all). A middle ground is missing.

Problem

The auto-memory system writes based on Claude's in-session judgment. For users who curate their own rule files / CLAUDE.md, this default turns offhand conversational observations into persistent facts that affect every subsequent session. Patterns that become corrosive over time:

  • A one-off correction becomes a permanent conversation rule
  • A specific case observation gets codified into a universal heuristic
  • A casual ranking or characterization becomes the canonical view
  • Stale memories fire into new contexts as if still true

The prompt-level workaround (adding "don't auto-save without asking" to ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md) is context-level guidance, not a hard gate. Its reliability is the same as any CLAUDE.md rule adherence — see #37857 where Claude ignoring CLAUDE.md instructions is documented as recurring.

Related: #47959 documents the inverse failure (auto-memory deleting files without consent, 23 files lost). Underlying pattern is the same — memory operations happen without a user confirmation gate.

Proposed

```json { "autoMemoryConfirmationRequired": true } ```

When enabled, Claude proposes the save in-conversation ("want me to save X as a memory?") and must wait for explicit confirmation before calling the write. Harness-level gate, not prompt-level guidance. Same principle could apply to deletions, which would address #47959.

Use case

Disciplined users who maintain curated rule files / CLAUDE.md want the capability of saved memory when explicitly useful, but can't tolerate silent promotion of conversational observations to standing facts. Currently their only recourse is disabling auto-memory entirely (autoMemoryEnabled: false), losing the convenience path for "yeah, save that one."

extent analysis

TL;DR

Adding a autoMemoryConfirmationRequired config option can provide a middle ground for users who want explicit control over auto-memory writes.

Guidance

  • Consider implementing the proposed autoMemoryConfirmationRequired config option to require explicit user confirmation before auto-memory writes.
  • This option can be used in conjunction with autoMemoryEnabled to provide more fine-grained control over memory management.
  • To mitigate the issue, users can currently disable auto-memory entirely by setting autoMemoryEnabled to false, but this may not be desirable for all use cases.
  • The proposed solution can also be applied to deletions to address the related issue #47959.

Example

{
  "autoMemoryEnabled": true,
  "autoMemoryConfirmationRequired": true
}

This configuration would enable auto-memory writes, but require explicit user confirmation before saving.

Notes

The proposed solution relies on the implementation of the autoMemoryConfirmationRequired config option, which is not currently available. Users may need to wait for an update or patch to utilize this feature.

Recommendation

Apply the proposed autoMemoryConfirmationRequired config option to provide explicit control over auto-memory writes, as it offers a more nuanced approach to memory management.

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