Hacker News Reader

Comment by shmulc | Hacker News Reader

That's the chain, yes. The part people don't expect: the file is created inside the project, and Claude Code only adds it to your global git ignore, not the repo's .gitignore. So a fresh clone or a second machine commits it like any other file. In 539 of the 1,105 repos we traced, a commit co-authored by Claude itself changed the file.

View on HN

> the file is created inside the project, and Claude Code only adds it to your global git ignore, not the repo's .gitignore. So a fresh clone or a second machine commits it like any other file

A fresh clone wouldn’t have the file. This claim doesn't make any sense.

The only way I can see this getting committed is if someone edited their global .gitignore or, more likely, did a whole directory transfer to do a different machine to work on.

That doesn’t make sense. I use my own global git ignore all the time because there are files that only I produce that I definitely don’t want committed (flycheck looking at you). A fresh clone wouldn’t contain these files because they are not committed in the first place. You will have to use a non-git transport mechanism to transfer the repo without also transferring your global git ignore.

Anyways this probably indicates that these repos don’t have a good code review process. The settings.local.json file name screams it’s local and shouldn’t be committed.

It's a disgrace that the parent comment was flagged. My vouching has undone that but it's likely to be flagged again.

All of their comments were auto flagged from the moment they were posted. Must have triggered an LLM detector or spam detector.

It's AI slop. If what it says is actually true, hopefully a human will post it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com