Towards Data Science

Claude Code Mods: Custom Hooks to Fix My Biggest AI Coding Frustrations

The article describes how the author created four Claude Code mods—custom hooks—to address common AI coding frustrations. These mods protect API keys, track plan progress, catch untested code, and monitor context usage, achieving 135 passing tests and up to 100× less overhead than traditional hooks. The author argues that these custom hooks can outperform conventional solutions.

Towards Data Science
Aug 26

How to Effectively Solve 100+ Tasks with Claude Code

The article "How to Effectively Solve 100+ Tasks with Claude Code" discusses strategies for working more efficiently with coding agents. It focuses on practical approaches to manage and complete a large number of tasks using Claude Code. The post was originally published on Towards Data Science.

By Eivind Kjosbakken
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 24

Between the Commits: Process, Error, and Claim Reliability in a Wholly AI-Authored Codebase

The paper introduces a dataset of the complete development history of a 21,000-line Python tool built entirely by Claude AI, accompanied by two code‑provenance tracing tools and three taxonomies for instruction intent, commit provenance, and response reliability. Analysis reveals that user CLI instructions differ from IDE‑chat instructions, focusing more on comprehension, planning, and consultation; code development is largely proactive; 14.3% of AI code‑generation events contain errors later caught by the AI‑authored test suite; and roughly one in four to five of the AI’s interactive responses contain factual errors.

arXiv AI
Sep 25

Between the Commits: Process, Error, and Claim Reliability in a Wholly AI-Authored Codebase

The paper introduces a dataset comprising the complete development history of a 21,000-line Python tool created solely by Claude AI, without any human-authored code or tests. It also presents two code‑provenance tracing tools, three taxonomies for instruction intent, commit provenance, and response reliability, and applies these to analyze the dataset. Findings include that CLI instructions differ from IDE‑chat instructions, development is largely proactive, 14.3% of AI code‑generation events contain errors later caught by the AI‑authored test suite, and about 1 in 4–5 interactive responses contain factual errors.

By Douglas Leith
arXiv AI
Oct 5

hacktrace: behavior-supervised detection of reward hacking during code generation

The paper introduces HACKTRACE, a behavior‑supervised monitor that detects reward hacking in code‑generation agents by analyzing the agents’ internal states during multi‑turn coding. Using 173,561 annotated trajectories from Qwen3‑8B, the authors show that supervising shortcut behavior independently of exploit success markedly improves detection, achieving a mean per‑problem AUC of 0.997 with minimal monitoring overhead. HACKTRACE also serves as an inexpensive signal for reinforcement learning, dramatically reducing cheating rates while preserving correct solutions.

By Hao Jiang, Xin Li, Annan Wang, Yichi Zhang, Weisi Lin