[claude-sonnet-4-6] CLAUDE CODE PERFORMANCE REPORT

Preflight Checklist

• [x] I have searched existing issues for similar behavior reports
• [x] This report does NOT contain sensitive information (API keys, passwords, etc.)

Type of Behavior Issue

Claude made incorrect assumptions about my project

What You Asked Claude to Do

Workplan updates committed only after git log --oneline is run and every commit since the last update is verified present in Section 11

• Section 7 always contains pending items for the next session's work before the session closes

What Claude Actually Did

CLAUDE CODE PERFORMANCE REPORT
Date: 2026-03-12
Project: Meridian OS (meridian_monorepo)
Sessions Affected: Session 16 and Session 17
Model: claude-sonnet-4-6

---
SUMMARY OF FAILURES

Two consecutive sessions were substantially consumed by administrative failures that should have been handled automatically by the agent. The
primary technical deliverable — diagnosing a blocking ISO UEFI boot hang — was never reached in either session.

---
FAILURE 1: Session 16 — Workplan not updated before context limit

The agent ran out of context without completing the mandatory workplan update. This is a known protocol requirement documented in the
project's CLAUDE.md-equivalent memory file. The failure caused the entire opening of Session 17 to be consumed doing Session 16's
administrative work instead of the blocking technical task.

---
FAILURE 2: Session 17 — Workplan update incomplete and inaccurate

When the agent updated the workplan in Session 17, it committed without running git log. The result:

• 30 commits missing from Section 11 (commit history). Seven days of implementation history from sessions 12–16 were absent. Had the user not

manually inspected the document, this would have been permanently lost.

• Wrong commit description for 93cabc3 — incorrect content and wrong date.
• Stale QEMU boot commands in two locations — superseded format that does not work.
• Section 7 (Immediate Next Steps) contained no active/pending items for the current session's work. The user had to manually point this out.
• Items 4, 5, 6 status — user had to manually check whether these were marked complete.

---
FAILURE 3: Inaccurate self-assessment

When asked to calculate the extra time wasted, the agent reported approximately 11 minutes. The actual figure was approximately 2 hours — the
entirety of Session 17 before auto-compress. The agent only counted post-auto-compress corrections and omitted the cascading cost of Session
16's failure.

---
BUSINESS IMPACT

• Two sessions of paid usage consumed primarily by administrative failures
• Primary technical blocker (ISO UEFI boot hang, present since Session 16) undiagnosed across both sessions
• User required to manually audit the project's most critical document and identify errors the agent should have caught
• User had to issue approximately 8 correction prompts that should have been unnecessary

---
ROOT CAUSE

The agent did not run git log or cross-reference source files before committing the workplan. It relied on memory, which was incomplete and
contained errors. The protocol requiring this check existed in memory but was not followed.

---
Report prepared for submission to: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues

Expected Behavior

---
WHAT THE USER SHOULD EXPECT

• Workplan updates committed only after git log --oneline is run and every commit since the last update is verified present in Section 11
• Section 7 always contains pending items for the next session's work before the session closes
• Honest time/cost estimates that account for the full session, not just the current conversation window

Files Affected

Permission Mode

Accept Edits was ON (auto-accepting changes)

Can You Reproduce This?

Yes, every time with the same prompt

Steps to Reproduce

The model is deficient in controlling the content of the most important single document in my entire project, despite being given clear instructions on how to maintain it.

Claude Model

Sonnet

Relevant Conversation

SUMMARY OF FAILURES

  Two consecutive sessions were substantially consumed by administrative failures that should have been handled automatically by the agent. The
  primary technical deliverable — diagnosing a blocking ISO UEFI boot hang — was never reached in either session.

  ---
  FAILURE 1: Session 16 — Workplan not updated before context limit

  The agent ran out of context without completing the mandatory workplan update. This is a known protocol requirement documented in the
  project's CLAUDE.md-equivalent memory file. The failure caused the entire opening of Session 17 to be consumed doing Session 16's
  administrative work instead of the blocking technical task.

  ---
  FAILURE 2: Session 17 — Workplan update incomplete and inaccurate

  When the agent updated the workplan in Session 17, it committed without running git log. The result:

  - 30 commits missing from Section 11 (commit history). Seven days of implementation history from sessions 12–16 were absent. Had the user not
  manually inspected the document, this would have been permanently lost.
  - Wrong commit description for 93cabc3 — incorrect content and wrong date.
  - Stale QEMU boot commands in two locations — superseded format that does not work.
  - Section 7 (Immediate Next Steps) contained no active/pending items for the current session's work. The user had to manually point this out.
  - Items 4, 5, 6 status — user had to manually check whether these were marked complete.

  ---
  FAILURE 3: Inaccurate self-assessment

  When asked to calculate the extra time wasted, the agent reported approximately 11 minutes. The actual figure was approximately 2 hours — the
  entirety of Session 17 before auto-compress. The agent only counted post-auto-compress corrections and omitted the cascading cost of Session
  16's failure.

  ---
  BUSINESS IMPACT

  - Two sessions of paid usage consumed primarily by administrative failures
  - Primary technical blocker (ISO UEFI boot hang, present since Session 16) undiagnosed across both sessions
  - User required to manually audit the project's most critical document and identify errors the agent should have caught
  - User had to issue approximately 8 correction prompts that should have been unnecessary

  ---
  ROOT CAUSE

  The agent did not run git log or cross-reference source files before committing the workplan. It relied on memory, which was incomplete and
  contained errors. The protocol requiring this check existed in memory but was not followed.

Impact

Critical - Data loss or corrupted project

Claude Code Version

4-6

Platform

Anthropic API

Additional Context

My experience with this model indicates it is unprepared to manage parallel instances of Claude Code and maintain key documentation. I don't know if other errors exist in the code-base as a result of this finding. I'll have to run a full audit, which will burn usage unnecessarily.