[FEATURE] Claude Code Group by folder is misleading because it groups by repo. Add option to actually group by folder.
Preflight Checklist
- [x] I have searched existing requests and this feature hasn't been requested yet
- [x] This is a single feature request (not multiple features)
Problem Statement
In the Claude Code app sidebar, projects backed by a GitHub remote are labeled with the repository name only. I have several clones of a repo in different folders and I would like to group my conversations by the folder name, but currently they're all under the same heading titled the repo name.
Proposed Solution
There is an option to Group by Folder - make it actually group by folder and add another option Group by Repo that does what it currently does.
When a worktree is created, this is obviously in a different folder so will need its own group created. I'm guessing that's why it's not the default.
We were on GitLab before and my conversations were grouped by folder - that was nice. Can we have an option to do that for GitHub backing too
Alternative Solutions
_No response_
Priority
Medium - Would be very helpful
Feature Category
Configuration and settings
Use Case Example
- I'm waiting for my work to compile in one folder, or waiting for a claude session to generate code. Or perhaps a high priority bug has popped up and I don't want to stash my work in the current folder. So I move to the 2nd folder with the same repo.
- Open a claude conversation in the new folder
- It's grouped in next to my other conversations
- Becomes difficult to sift through conversations
Additional Context
There are two issues similar to this that have been closed without completing:
- https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/81063 - asked for naming the groups by folder name, or ability to manually rename, rather than repo name.
- https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/80187 - asked for naming the groups by owner/repo, or ability to manually rename, rather than repo name.
I want essentially the first one.
This issue has 2 comments on GitHub. Read the full discussion on GitHub ↗