Feature Request: Allow configuring or disabling 'clear context' default when accepting plans
Feature Request
Request: Add the ability to re-order or disable the "clear context" default option when accepting Claude's plan.
Problem
When Claude generates a plan, the default option presented is to execute the plan and clear context. This creates a user flow where valuable conversation information not captured in the plan is lost.
Example Scenario
- Have a conversation with Claude about two problems you want to fix
- Ask Claude to come up with a plan to fix one problem
- Result: Claude generates the plan, and the default option is "work on the plan and clear context"
- Impact: Pressing Enter (accepting the default) forgets valuable information from the conversation that wasn't included in the plan
Current Workaround
Don't hit Enter to accept the default—manually select a different option.
Why the Workaround is Inadequate
- Muscle memory: Accepting the first option is the natural, easy flow
- User expectations: If Claude offers to clear context, users may reasonably expect that clearing is safe
- No recovery awareness: Users could theoretically resume the session before context was cleared, but Claude won't be aware that a "fork" happened
Observations
The "talk about task → generate plan → clear context → execute" flow works well for focused, single-task workflows. I use it frequently and find it valuable.
However, Claude is a versatile tool. There are legitimate reasons for users to:
- Discuss multiple problems before planning
- Plan and work on only a component of the overall work
- Maintain context about related issues while executing a plan
The "clear and execute" option is potentially destructive. Users should be able to configure this behavior.
Proposed Solutions
Option A - User Configuration: Allow users to configure Claude to:
- Disable the "clear context" behavior entirely, or
- Adjust the order of options presented (making "execute without clearing" the default)
Option B - Smarter Context Awareness: Claude could make a context-aware decision:
- If the plan covers all remaining work → present "clear and execute" as default
- If there's unaddressed context → present "execute without clearing" as default
(Option B may have inference overhead considerations)
Summary
I recognize the value of the current "clear and execute" pattern for focused workflows. However, since context clearing is destructive and irreversible, I believe users should have control over this default behavior.
5 Comments
Found 3 possible duplicate issues:
This issue will be automatically closed as a duplicate in 3 days.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
See related issue #18599
Having this as the first option that shows up when Claude Code attempts to make code changes and execute commands is extremely dangerous, especially if you've been working with Claude Code for hours, building up a history of complex discussions/troubleshooting/architecting and planning. At least /compact tries to provide some continuity to continue progress on where it left off. This clear context option is actually WORSE than letting Claude Code complete the execution of changes and commands, then exiting Claude Code and restarting it. Why? Because at least if I exit and restart Claude Code, I still have the option of recalling my conversation with /resume. If this clear context wipes out my conversation, then I can't even recover where I left off. I'd double-down on Option A with a variant:
Option C:
Remove the clear context option. (If there is some use case for wiping out the current context, support that with an explicit /slash command (e.g. /reset-context) that essentially creates a NEW conversation AND preserves the previous one so that there's still an option to /resume)
This is a duplicate, closing and upvoting originals!
@hanrgy you can use /resume to re-attached to the conversation where context was cleared so the context can be recovered.
This issue has been automatically locked since it was closed and has not had any activity for 7 days. If you're experiencing a similar issue, please file a new issue and reference this one if it's relevant.