These kinds of tooling and related work will still be there unless AI evolves to the point that it even thinks of this and announces this to all other AI entities and they also implement it properly etc.

Hooks will be important for "context engineering" and runtime verification of an agent's performance. This extends to things such as enterprise compliance and oversight of agentic behavior.

Nice of Anthropic to have supported the idea of this feature from a github issue submission: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/712

    Exit Code 2 Behavior
    PreToolUse - Blocks the tool call, shows error to Claude

E.g. you can allow

    docker compose exec django python manage.py test

    docker compose exec django python manage.py makemigrations

  "hooks": {
    "PostToolUse": [
      {
        "matcher": "Edit|MultiEdit|Write",
        "hooks": [
          {
            "type": "command",
            "command": "jq -r '.tool_input.file_path' | xargs bin/save-hook.sh"
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  }

To test a new hook one needs to restart claude. Better to run the actual processing through a script one can continually edit in one session. This script uses formatters on C files and shell scripts, and just fixes missing returns on other files.

As usual claude and other AI is poor at breaking problems into small steps, and makes up ways to do things. The above hook receives a json file, which I first saved to disk, then extracted the file path and saved that to disk, then instead called save-hook.sh on that path. Now we're home after a couple of edits to save-hook.sh

This was all ten minutes. I wasted far more time letting it flail attempting bigger steps at once.

Maybe this will enable a fix

I'm happy to see Claude Code reaching parity with Cursor for linting/type checking after edits.

Wouldn't it be nice to have the agent autodiscover the hooks and abstracting their implementation details away under the mcp server, which you could even reuse by other agents?

We’ve been using CLAUDE.md instructions to tell Claude to auto-format code with the Qlty CLI (https://github.com/qltysh/qlty) but Claude a bit hit and miss in following them. The determinism here is a win.

It looks like the events that can be hooked are somewhat limited to start, and I wonder if they will make it easy to hook Git commit and Git push.

I was using the API and passed $50 easily, so I upgraded to the $100 a month plan and have already reached $100 in usage.

I've been working on a large project, with 3 different repos (frontend, backend, legacy backend) and I just have all 3 of them in one directory now with claude code.

Wrote some quick instructions about how it was setup, its worked very well. If I am feeling brave I can have multiple claude codes running in different terminals, each working on one piece, but Opus tends to do better working across all 3 repos with all of the required context.

Still have to audit every change, commit often, but it works great 90% of the time.

Opus-4 feels like what OAI was trying to hype up for the better part of 6 months before releasing 4.5

I have been using it for other stuff (real estate, grilling recipes, troubleshooting electrical issues with my truck), and it seems to have a very large knowledge base. At this point, my goal is to get good at asking the right kinds of questions to get the best/most accurate answers.

>hooks let you build workflows where multiple agents can hand off work safely. one agent writes code another reviews it another deploys it. each step gated by verification hooks.

No machine learning work? That would compete.

No writing stuff I would train AI on. Except I own the stuff it writes, but I can’t use it.

Can we build websites with it? What websites don’t compete with Anthropic?

Terminal games? No, Claude code is a terminal game, if you make a terminal game it competes with Claude?

Can their “trust and safety team” humans read everyone’s stuff just to check if we’re competing with LLMs (funny joke) and steal business ideas and use them at Anthropic?

Feels like the dirty secret of AI services is, every possible use case violates the terms, and we just have to accept we’re using something their legal team told us not to use? How is that logically consistent? Any safety concerns? This doesn’t seem like a law Asimov would appreciate.

It would be cool if the set of allowed use cases wasn’t empty. That might make Anthropic seem more intelligent

I am tired of pretending that this can actually pull any meaningful work besides a debug companion or a slightly enhanced google/stackoverflow.

A better analogy is LLM's are closer to the "universal translator" with an occasional interaction similar to[0]:

  Black Knight: None shall pass.
  King Arthur: What?
  Black Knight: None shall pass!
  King Arthur: I have no quarrel with you good Sir Knight, But I must cross this bridge.
  Black Knight: Then you shall die.
  King Arthur: I command you, as King of the Britons, to stand aside!
  Black Knight: I move for no man.
  King Arthur: So be it!
  [they fight until Arthur cuts off the Black Knight's left arm]
  King Arthur: Now, stand aside, worthy adversary.
  Black Knight: 'Tis but a scratch.
  King Arthur: A scratch? Your arm's off!
  Black Knight: No, it isn't.
  King Arthur: Well, what's that then?
  Black Knight: I've had worse.