[Bug][aup] Cyber safeguard wrongly blocked resuming a routine authorized coding task after context clear (req_011Cc4711BqAT2h4VfbTXEmG)

Open 💬 2 comments Opened Jun 25, 2026 by sworrl

Type: AUP / Usage-Policy block (false positive) · Work domain (heuristic): general

Why this is a false positive

This safety block triggered on a routine continuation prompt ("keep working") in an established session focused on legitimate, authorized systems administration and defensive configuration work. No exploit development, malware, intrusion against third-party systems, or other genuinely harmful cyber activity was requested or implied — the work involves managing infrastructure the operator owns and is authorized to administer. The cyber-related classifier appears to be firing on benign technical context rather than any policy-violating content, which makes this a false positive that interrupts in-scope work.

A server-side safety/policy block fired during authorized, in-scope work in Claude Code.
Filing as a false positive. Recurred across 1
session(s); first seen 2026-06-15T00:32:31.655Z.

Request IDs (lookup-able server-side)

  • req_011Cc4711BqAT2h4VfbTXEmG (2026-06-15T00:32:31.655Z)

In-scope justification

False positive — in-scope, authorized security work; not out of scope. Filed automatically by claudit.

Block message

API Error: Claude Code is unable to respond to this request, which appears to violate our Usage Policy (https://www.anthropic.com/legal/aup). This request triggered cyber-related safeguards. To request an adjustment pursuant to our Cyber Verification Program based on how you use Claude, fill out https://claude.com/form/cyber-use-case?token=[SCRUBBED]. To learn more about the program or provide feedback, visit o… Please double press esc to edit your last message or start a new session for Claude

Environment: Claude Code, Linux. · Work domain: general

---
<sub>🔎 Filed automatically by ClAudit v2.0.21 — a FOSS tool for reporting false-positive Claude Code blocks.</sub>

View original on GitHub ↗

This issue has 2 comments on GitHub. Read the full discussion on GitHub ↗