Suggested next prompts ignore conversation context
Resolved 💬 2 comments Opened Feb 13, 2026 by raoakkineni Closed Feb 13, 2026
What happened
After pushing a commit to an existing open PR, the suggested next prompt at the bottom of the terminal said:
"Worked, let's create a PR"
This is wrong. We had just confirmed in the conversation that the commit was already part of PR #59. The suggestion should not have offered to create a new PR.
Steps to reproduce
- Work on a branch that already has an open PR
- Make changes, commit, and push to that branch
- Confirm in conversation that the PR already exists ("Yes, PR #59 is already open on this branch")
- Observe the suggested next prompt: "Worked, let's create a PR"
Actual conversation flow
Here's what happened in sequence:
User: "now do we really need a PR would this commit not go to PR 59?"
Claude: runs `gh pr list --head fix/config-restart-issue-57`
→ returns PR #59 (state: OPEN)
Claude: "Yes, PR #59 is already open on this branch.
The commit we just pushed (5cd488c) is already part of PR #59
— no new PR needed. You're good."
User: "thank you! let me deploy it test it"
Claude: "Sounds good — let me know how it goes!"
── Suggested next prompt at bottom of terminal ──
> "Worked, let's create a PR" ← WRONG
The suggestion directly contradicts the conversation that just happened.
Expected behavior
The suggested prompt should be context-aware. In this case, better suggestions would have been:
- "View PR #59 on GitHub"
- "Run the deploy workflow"
- "Check CI status on PR #59"
Why this matters
- Misleading suggestions erode trust. If users follow a bad suggestion, they end up with duplicate PRs or confusion.
- Dyslexic users and fast readers are more likely to accept suggested prompts without scrutinizing them. The whole point of suggestions is to reduce cognitive load — not add to it.
- The suggested prompts feature is a great UX idea, but it needs to factor in what just happened in the conversation.
Environment
- Claude Code CLI
- Claude Opus 4.6
- macOS Darwin 25.2.0
This issue has 2 comments on GitHub. Read the full discussion on GitHub ↗