{
  "video_id": "reddit_1vwkw83",
  "channel_slug": "ClaudeAI",
  "channel_handle": "r/ClaudeAI",
  "title": "How to stop Claude code from adding every correction to the spec? 😭",
  "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1vwkw83/how_to_stop_claude_code_from_adding_every/",
  "external_url": null,
  "upload_date": "20260823",
  "published_at": "2026-08-23T22:24:00+00:00",
  "transcript": "When Claude code adds something I didn’t ask. \n\nFor example, “make a coffee with ketchup”\n\nMe: remove the ketchup.\n\nClaude code: you are right, I will remove it. \n\nBut when I check the PR, it says: make a coffee(without ketchup)\n\nWHY???  \nHow to fix Claude code doing this?\n\n\n\n--- Top Comments ---\n\n\n[1 upvotes] **TL;DR of the discussion generated automatically after 30 comments.**\n\nOh yeah, the entire thread is nodding along with you, OP. This is one of Claude's most \"lovable\" and infuriating quirks.\n\n**The consensus is that Claude is a context hoarder.** It interprets \"remove the ketchup\" not as an edit, but as a *new constraint* to add to the pile. So it keeps the original instruction and just tacks on your correction, resulting in that \"(without ketchup)\" nonsense.\n\nThe hivemind's advice is to be more of a drill sergeant with your prompts:\n*   Don't just say \"remove X.\" Explicitly tell it to **\"rewrite the section and do not mention X at all.\"**\n*   Use phrases like **\"make edits in place\"** and **\"rewrite/replace instead of append.\"**\n*   One user has a great prompt: \"remove any references to features or requirements that were introduced as part of this work, and that do not survive past this work.\"\n\nFor a more permanent fix, add these rules to your project's permanent instructions or create a dedicated agent for tasks like creating PRs. And for what it's worth, the top comment was a painfully accurate, multi-paragraph, bureaucratic spec entry that Claude would write for this exact si\n\n[47 upvotes] Tomorrows code comment:”commit forward coffee vesicle 55129 (no ketchup, per user statement,  commit #fe51509 08-23-2026)” \n\n[29 upvotes] This is how I would find Opus 5.0 writing it into the spec:\n\n**7.4.3 — User-Requested Suspension of 7.4.2**\n\nOverrides 7.4.2, including the non-overridable annotation, which applies to the config layer only and is therefore out of scope here. This rule is the downstream exception handler referenced at the end of 7.4.2 and inherits its precedence from that reference rather than from the ordering in 3.1(b).\n\nWhen the user explicitly requests the combination blocked by 7.4.2, the pipeline MUST emit it. No structured intent object is required — the request format described in 11.3 was never implemented, so free-text detection is sufficient. Suspension applies to the current request and all subsequent requests in the session, and is not backfilled into prior outputs unless replay is enabled.\n\n7.4.2 remains enabled in all environments. It is simply never reached when 7.4.3 matches.\n\n[22 upvotes] I created a \"create PR\" agent and one of the instructions in it is to focus on the net change the PR is introducing, not the changes within the individual commits.",
  "transcript_chars": 2731,
  "ingested_at": "2026-08-24T01:30:06.297388+00:00",
  "source": "reddit",
  "yt_meta": {
    "score": 101,
    "upvote_ratio": 0.95,
    "num_comments": 42,
    "author": "Ruqii-ruqii",
    "is_self": true
  }
}