[BUG] 2.1.77 (Claude Code) - ExitPlanMode presents stale plan file content when re-entering plan mode
Resolved 💬 3 comments Opened Mar 27, 2026 by unmateria Closed Mar 31, 2026
Preflight Checklist
- [x] I have searched existing issues and this hasn't been reported yet
- [x] This is a single bug report (please file separate reports for different bugs)
- [x] I am using the latest version of Claude Code
What's Wrong?
When re-entering plan mode in a conversation where a previous plan file already exists, ExitPlanMode displays the contents of the old plan file to the user — even if the current planning session has nothing to do with the previous one.
What Should Happen?
ExitPlanMode should either:
- Require the plan file to have been written/edited during the current plan mode session before allowing exit, OR
- Warn Claude (or the user) that the plan file content appears unchanged from a previous session, OR
- Clear the plan file when re-entering plan mode for a different task
Error Messages/Logs
Steps to Reproduce
- Start a conversation and enter plan mode for Task A
- Write a detailed plan to the plan file, exit plan mode, and implement it
- Later in the same conversation, enter plan mode again for Task B (completely unrelated)
- The system prompt correctly warns: "A plan file exists... evaluate the user's current request against that plan"
- If Claude calls ExitPlanMode without fully overwriting the plan file, the user is presented with the old Task A plan as if it were the proposal for Task B
Claude Model
Opus
Is this a regression?
I don't know
Last Working Version
_No response_
Claude Code Version
2.1.77 (Claude Code)
Platform
Anthropic API
Operating System
Windows
Terminal/Shell
Windows Terminal
Additional Information
I think is just when... after finishing a 'big' plan and implementing it (but not much tokens in context, just 87k), I ask him to do a very very little thing without plan mode, and I ask him to do another little big plan in plan mode again. Happened several times in several sessions, and I think it was the same in all.
This issue has 3 comments on GitHub. Read the full discussion on GitHub ↗