If you know it's there. It gets created on the fly when it is needed, so unless you know that is possible and needs to be gitignored, it could easily slip by.
replyDo you not review before committing/pushing?
replySaying a professional software developer is responsible for not committing secrets is reasonable. That said, these tool chains all seem to condition developers to offload much of that diligence to the tooling itself, which makes catching mistakes harder because you’re not as used to scanning for them. Secrets files have always been foot guns, and with automation-borne complacence, and vibe coders that don’t understand the problem, I imagine these things will become even more common.
reply[dead]
replyThis did not impact me. But if using a tool means that secrets can randomly appear in my project, then I am using the wrong tool.
replyCorrect stance.
replyWhy would you use a tool that creates tedious and dangerous work for you?
“Oh you are just supposed to make up for Claude’s errors, and problem solved!”
Oh no, I moved all that manual tedious boring loser mentality stuff to the agent. Now Claude does it for me, and no strangely enough Claude didn’t tell me there was a problem!
replyIn these cases they probably just blindly committed everything themselves, if you asked Claude to review the uncommitted changes and do the commit itself it probably would have flagged this.
reply> Often Claude commits the file itself. In 539 of the 1,105 repos with a real secret that we traced, a commit co-authored by Claude changed the file. Those commits name every recent model, from Sonnet 4.5 to Opus 5.5.
replyWhat do you make of that part of the article?
Like I said in my comment that you replied to they likely flagged it and then the user just told it to continue anyways.
replyIt's gitignored by default.
replyThe default of who or what ? Git ignore is empty "by default", inexistant even
replyWhen Claude generates the file, it also generates a .gitignore for it or fills in the existing one.
replyIf this is the intended behavior, a quick search of github and the article's findings seem to suggest it doesn't work.
replySo you just routinely commit everything in the project, without looking at what it is?
replyMy coworkers seem to
replyIt is only the .local files within .claude that can't be committed. We have .claude committed in multiple repos to include repo-specific skills/hooks/permissions.
replyHmm.
replyDumb if you don’t turn on auto-mode, dumb if auto-mode commits .claude.
No way to hold it right I guess?
If you have stuff in your tree that's not part of your project's code, you're already dumb.
replyIf it's keys or secrets of any kind, you're even dumber.
If it's in a hidden directory, you are even dumber still.
If you rely on somebody stupid enough to do any of that not to commit it, you have gone beyond the valley of the ultra-dumb. Actually that's true even if you rely on smart people not to do it.
You got your dumb card fully punched when you created `.keys` to begin with.