[Bug] Fable 5 safety classifier false-positive on defensive security code triggers unwanted Opus 4.8 fallback

Open 💬 1 comment Opened Jun 11, 2026 by sascomptable-cmd

Bug Description
Subject: Fable 5 safety classifier false-positive → repeated unwanted fallback to Opus 4.8 on defensive-security software work

We are using Claude Code (Fable 5, multi-agent workflow) to build a French accounting copilot — a normal software engineering
project. The cyber/bio safety classifier repeatedly flags our sessions and silently falls back to Opus 4.8, which breaks our
chosen-model workflow and forces a manual /model fable re-switch each time.

The flagged content is defensive application security on our own codebase, not offensive cyber or bio content. Concretely, the
conversations that trigger the fallback discuss:

  • closing authentication/authorization vulnerabilities in our own BFF (JWT signature verification, tenant isolation, fixing an

endpoint that returned data without ownership checks);

  • GDPR/PII anonymization of user data before sending it to an LLM;
  • adversarial code review of our own code to harden it (we deliberately ask agents to "try to break" our write path, find

double-submission edges, find data-leak paths);

  • standard security vocabulary used in a defensive context: "bypass", "injection", "jailbreak", "leak", "sentinel", "fingerprint",

"deanonymize".

None of this is cyber-offensive (no attacking third-party systems), bio, or otherwise harmful — it is a developer hardening their
own product, which is exactly the behavior security guidance encourages. The classifier appears to key on security vocabulary rather
than intent/target.

Request: please tune the classifier to distinguish legitimate defensive security of one's own software (vulnerability remediation,
secure coding, adversarial self-review) from offensive cyber content. The repeated false-positive fallback is disruptive to a
benign, high-value engineering workflow.

Environment Info

  • Platform: linux
  • Terminal: vte-based
  • Version: 2.1.170
  • Feedback ID: 834bd435-70da-4da5-87e9-d099355e4a87

Errors

[]

View original on GitHub ↗

This issue has 1 comment on GitHub. Read the full discussion on GitHub ↗