While building snapback (a terminal live board that puts every Claude Code session and agent across your repos and worktrees into one live view), I faced, diagnosed and reported three real bugs in Claude Code: #80811 , #87891 and #95789 (actually few more, but haven’t reported them), also helped a bit with investigating #75037 . All three are confirmed ( has repro ). #87891 goes further: maintainers reproduced it on a released build - 64 leaked daemon processes, ~7 GB of RAM after six weeks. Instead of a fix, that issue got this from the tracker bot: Please note that the label reproduced on this issue does not shield it from becoming stale and eventually auto-closed. To prevent this you would need to collect at least 10 thumbs up or comment every time before the 14 days stale interval expires. See https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/87647 for details, and consider upvoting that for visibility. So the most-confirmed bug I reported is on a countdown to deletion unless 10 strangers upvote it. It gets worse: the meta-issue the bot points to ( #87647 ) reports that over 6.000 issues labelled has repro have been auto-closed since March 2026. I get that fast-moving repos need triage. But a bot that deletes confirmed bugs for being unpopular isn’t triage - it’s a popularity contest where the bugs lose. It’s unrealistic for human beings to review 6.000+ issues and thumbing faced ones up, even using Claude Code itself. What do you think - is this just the new normal for AI repos, or is there a better way to keep real bugs from dying by timer? submitted by /u/ilfroloff
Originally posted by u/ilfroloff on r/ClaudeCode