i started this because i wanted something pretty simple: after a Claude Code session, check whether it actually followed the project’s CLAUDE.md. at first this looked way more doable than i expected. my first heuristic said 55.7% of the rules were checkable. then i started manually going through them. 55.7% → 18% → 8.75% → 6.67% the funny part is this doesn’t mean Claude ignores ~90% of CLAUDE.md rules. i wasn’t measuring compliance. it’s more annoying than that: most of the rules just aren’t objectively auditable from the session trace. stuff like “run X before Y” or “don’t touch directory Z” is easy enough to verify from the commands it ran and the files it touched. but then you get rules like “prefer simple solutions”, “follow existing patterns”, “make sure it’s robust”, etc. and… how exactly do you prove that? so now i’m wondering if the problem is partly how we write CLAUDE.md files in the first place. or maybe coding agents just need much better audit trails. dataset + methodology: https://github.com/VladUZH/claude-md-study if you wanted to actually audit whether Claude followed a CLAUDE.md, what would you want the session to record? submitted by /u/Ok_Explorer7384
Originally posted by u/Ok_Explorer7384 on r/ClaudeCode