[FEATURE] Request: Model awareness of elapsed time between messages

Resolved 💬 7 comments Opened Feb 25, 2026 by drabels Closed May 5, 2026

Preflight Checklist

  • [x] I have searched existing requests and this feature hasn't been requested yet
  • [x] This is a single feature request (not multiple features)

Problem Statement

Claude Code has no awareness of time passing between messages. This causes two practical issues:

  1. Redundant prompts — Claude repeatedly asks about long-running tasks (rsync, scrub, builds) seconds after the last check, because it can't tell whether 30 seconds or 3 hours have passed.
  1. Context compaction loses temporal structure — When conversations are summarized during compaction, there's no way to identify session boundaries (e.g. a 7-hour overnight gap), distinguish deferred tasks from throwaway comments, or preserve temporal relationships between events. Brief but important exchanges get dropped.

Example: A 24-hour ZFS migration session where context compaction dropped a feature request discussion entirely, and Claude repeatedly prompted for rsync status minutes after starting a multi-hour transfer.

Proposed Solution

Include timestamps in the message stream so that Claude can reason about elapsed time. A settings toggle (e.g. checkbox) could control visibility in the UI — hidden by default to avoid clutter.

Even if hidden from the user, timestamps in the message stream would allow Claude to:

  • Gauge elapsed time and avoid redundant status checks
  • Recognise session boundaries during compaction
  • Preserve temporal context in long-running conversations

Related: #2441, #28199 — those focus on timestamps as a UI/display feature for users. This request focuses on model awareness of elapsed time to improve Claude's behaviour and context compaction quality.

Alternative Solutions

_No response_

Priority

Medium - Would be very helpful

Feature Category

Other

Use Case Example

_No response_

Additional Context

_No response_

View original on GitHub ↗

This issue has 7 comments on GitHub. Read the full discussion on GitHub ↗