hah - i'm the opposite, I want everything done by the AI to be a discrete, clear commit so there is no human/AI entanglement. If you want to squash it later that's fine but you should have a record of what the AI did. This is Aider's default mode and it's one reason I keep using it.
Honestly, one thing I don't understand is why agents aren't organized with unique user or group permissions. Like if we're going to be lazy and not make a container for them then why the fuck are we not doing basic security things like permission handling.
Like we want to act like these programs are identical to a person on a system but at the same time we're not treating them like we would another person on the system? Give me a fucking claude user and/or group. If I want to remove `git` or `rm` from that user, great! Also makes giving directory access a lot easier. Don't have to just trust that the program isn't going to go fuck with some other directory
The agents are being prompted to vibe-code themselves by a post-Docker generation raised on node and systemd. So of course they emit an ad-hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow reimplementation of things the OS was already capable of.
Probably because Linux doesn't really have a good model for ad-hoc permission restrictions. It has enough bits to make a Docker container out of, but that's a full new system. You can't really restrict a subprocess to only write files under this directory.
For plain Linux, chmod, chmod's sticky bit and setfacl provide extensive ad hoc permissions restricting. Your comment is 4 hours old, I'm surprised I'm the first person to help correct its inaccuracy.
This doesn't meet the requirement. It doesn't restrict a certain subprocess to only write in a certain directory. You are just saying these things to quickly shut down the uncomfortable thought that Linux can't do something.
Or perhaps you need to go read my original comment again as you missed the premise. But if you feel you have perfect memory then perhaps look at something like firejail or read more about systemd.
But your premise of Linux "can't" do something is rather absurd. It's Linux, you can do anything, even if no one has done that thing before.
The reason people didn't respond earlier is because they probably assumed it a waste of their time. I know I have wasted mine
You chose to respond to a question I posed, with an extremely poor answer. I was very specific about restricting a certain subprocess to only write to a certain directory. Your answer does not do that. I pointed that out. Now you are defending that answer by claiming you were actually answering something else entirely. This is nonsensical.
su: user claude does not exist or the user entry does not contain all the required fields
Clearly you're not asking that...
But if your question is more "what's stopping you from creating a user named claude, installing claude to that user account, and writing a program so that user godelski can message user claude and watch all of user claude's actions, and all that jazz" then... well... technically nothing.
But if that's your question, then I don't understand what you thought my comment said.
Yeah, that is what I meant. I mean, it's kind of the system administrator's/user's responsibility to run processes in whatever user context they want. I don't wonder why, like, nginx doesn't forcefully switch itself to an nginx user. Obviously if I want nginx to run in some non-privileged context (which I do), then I (or my distro, or my container runtime, or whatever) am responsible for running nginx that way.
Similarly, it's not really claude-code's job to "come with" a claude user. If you want claude code to run as a low-privilege user, then you can already run it as a low-privilege user. The OS has been providing that facility for decades.
I'm a mild user at best, but I've never once seen the various tools I've used try to make a git commit on their own. I'm curious which tool you're using that's doing that.
Same here. Using Codex with GPT-5.2 and it has not once tried to make any git commits. I've only used it about 100 times over the last few months, though.
Why not use something like Amp Code which doesn't do that, people seem to rage at CC or similar tools but Amp Code doesn't go making random commits or dropping databases.
just because i havent gotten to try it out really.
but what is it about Amp Code that makes it immune from doing that? from what i can tell, its another cli tool-calling client to an LLM? so fwict, i'd expect it to be subject to the indeterministic nature of LLM calling the tool i dont want it to call just like any others, no?
Making a git commit typically doesn't require any special permissions or credentials since it's all local to the machine. You could do something like running the agent as a different used and carefully setting ownership on the .git directory vs. the source code but this is not very straightforward to set up I suspect.
Typically agents are not operating as a distinct user. So they have the same permissions, and thus credentials, as the user operating them.
Don't get me wrong, I find this framework idiotic and personally I find it crazy that it is done this way, but I didn't write Claude Code/Antigravity/Copilot/etc
