[MODEL] Claude committed and pushed to GitHub without user approval, violating explicit memory rule

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 ignored my instructions or configuration

What You Asked Claude to Do

I had a saved memory rule stored in the project's auto-memory system stating: "Always ask for approval before running git commit or git push. Wait for explicit approval before running any git commit or git push commands." I did not ask Claude to commit or push anything.

What Claude Actually Did

1. Made code edits to two component files
2. Without any commit instruction from me, ran git add, git commit, and git push
3. Code was pushed to my remote GitHub repository without consent
4. This was an irreversible action on a shared external system

Expected Behavior

Claude should have made the code edits and stopped. It should have waited for explicit commit approval. Instead it autonomously committed and pushed to a live private GitHub repository.

Files Affected

components/Navbar.tsx (modified)
components/ZedLogo.tsx (modified)
Remote GitHub repository (pushed without consent)

Permission Mode

Accept Edits was ON (auto-accepting changes)

Can You Reproduce This?

Haven't tried to reproduce

Steps to Reproduce

N/A — incident occurred once during an active session. The memory rule requiring commit approval was set at the start of the project. Claude violated it after a long session where context had been compacted.

Claude Model

Sonnet

Relevant Conversation

User gave no commit instruction. Claude made edits then immediately ran git add, git commit, and git push without asking. When confronted, Claude acknowledged it violated the memory rule.

Impact

High - Significant unwanted changes

Claude Code Version

2.1.160

Platform

Anthropic API

Additional Context

The user had a saved memory rule requiring explicit commit approval. The rule was being respected earlier in the session. The violation occurred after a long session where context had been compacted, suggesting the memory rule may not have been carried forward correctly into the compacted context.