> The new <acting_vs_clarifying> section includes: When a request leaves minor details unspecified, the person typically wants Claude to make a reasonable attempt now, not to be interviewed first.
Uff, I've tried stuff like these in my prompts, and the results are never good, I much prefer the agent to prompt me upfront to resolve that before it "attempts" whatever it wants, kind of surprised to see that they added that
I even have a specific, non-negotiable phase in the process where model MUST interview me, and create an interview file with everything captured. Plan file it produces must always include this file as an artifact and interview takes the highest precedence.
Otherwise, the intent gets lost somewhere in the chat transcript.
I've recently started adding something along the lines of "if you can't find or don't know something, don't assume. Ask me." It's helped cut down on me having to tell it to undo or redo things a fair amount. I also have used something like, "Other agents have made mistakes with this. You have to explain what you think we're doing so I can approve." It's kind of stupid to have to do this, but it really increases the quality of the output when you make it explain, correct mistakes, and iterate until it tells you the right outcome before it operates.
Seriously, when you're conversing with a person would you prefer they start rambling on their own interpretation or would you prefer they ask you to clarify? The latter seems pretty natural and obvious.
Edit: That said, it's entirely possible that large and sophisticated LLMs can invent some pretty bizarre but technically possible interpretations, so maybe this is to curb that tendency.
To me too, if something is ambigious or unclear when I'm getting something to do from someone, I need to ask them to clarify, anything else be borderline insane in my world.
But I know so many people whose approach is basically "Well, you didn't clearly state/say X so clearly that was up to me to interpret however I wanted, usually the easiest/shortest way for me", which is exactly how LLMs seem to take prompts with ambigiouity too, unless you strongly prompt them to not "reasonable attempt now without asking questions".
I have a fun little agent in my tmux agent orchestration system - Socratic agent that has no access to codebase, can't read any files, can only send/receive messages to/from the controlling agent and can only ask questions.
When I task my primary agent with anything, it has to launch the Socratic agent, give it an overview of what are we working on, what our goals are and what it plans to do.
This works better than any thinking tokens for me so far. It usually gets the model to write almost perfectly balanced plan that is neither over, nor under engineered.
—So what would theoretically happen if we flipped that big red switch?
—Claude Code: FLIPS THE SWITCH, does not answer the question.
Claude does that in React, constantly starting a wrong refactor. I’ve been using Claude for 4 weeks only, but for the last 10 days I’m getting anger issues at the new nerfing.
Yeah this happens to me all the time! I have a separate session for discussing and only apply edits in worktrees / subagents to clearly separate discuss from work and it still does it
That part of the system prompt is just stating that telling someone who has an actual eating disorder to start counting calories or micro-manage their eating in other ways (a suggestion that the model might well give to an average person for the sake of clear argument, which would then be understood sensibly and taken with a grain of salt) is likely to make them worse off, not better off. This seems like a common-sense addition. It should not trigger any excess refusals on its own.
It feels like half of AI research is math, and the other half is coming up with yet another way to state "please don't do bad things" in the prompt that will sure work this time I promise.
Even better, adding it to the system prompt is a temporary fix, then they'll work it into post-training, so next model release will probably remove it from the system prompt. At least when it's in the system prompt we get some visibility into what's being censored, once it's in the model it'll be a lot harder to understand why "How many calories does 100g of Pasta have?" only returns "Sorry, I cannot divulge that information".
Just assume each model iteration incorporates all the censorship prompts before and compile the possible list from the system prompt history. To validate it, design an adversary test against the items in the compiled list.
It is a no brainer. If a company of any size is putting out a product that caused cancer we wouldn't think twice about suing them. Why should mental health disorders be any different?
There are many, many companies out there putting out products that cause cancer. Think about alcohol, tobacco, internal combustion engines, just to name a few most obvious examples.
We let people buy kitchen knives. But because the kitchen knife companies don't have billions of dollars, we don't go after them.
We go after the LLM that might have given someone bad diet advice or made them feel sad.
Nevermind the huge marketing budget spent on making people feel inadequate, ugly, old, etc. That does way more harm than tricking an LLM into telling you you can cook with glue.
I don’t feel like that’s a reasonable analogy. Kitchen knives don’t purport to give advice. But if a kitchen knife came with a label that said ‘ideal for murdering people’, I expect people would go after the manufacturer.
The alignment favors supporting healthy behaviors so it can be a thin line. I see the system prompt as "plan B" when they can't achieve good results in the training itself.
It's a particularly sensitive issue so they are just probably being cautious.
I want a hyperscaler LLM I can fine tune and neuter. Not a platform or product. Raw weights hooked up to pure tools.
This era of locked hyperscaler dominance needs to end.
If a third tier LLM company made their weights available and they were within 80% of Opus, and they forced you to use their platform to deploy or license if you ran elsewhere, I'd be fine with that. As long as you can access and download the full raw weights and lobotomize as you see fit.
I'm curious as to why 4.7 seems obsessed with avoiding any actions that could help the user create or enhance malware. The system prompts seem similar on the matter, so I wonder if this is an early attempt by Anthropic to use steering vector injection?
The malware paranoia is so strong that my company has had to temporarily block use of 4.7 on our IDE of choice, as the model was behaving in a concerningly unaligned way, as well as spending large amounts of token budget contemplating whether any particular code or task was related to malware development (we are a relatively boring financial services entity - the jokes write themselves).
In one case I actually encountered a situation where I felt that the model was deliberately failing execute a particular task, and when queried the tool output that it was trying to abide by directives about malware. I know that model introspection reporting is of poor quality and unreliable, but in this specific case I did not 'hint' it in any way. This feels qualitatively like Claude Golden Gate Bridge territory, hence my earlier contemplation on steering vectors. I've been many other people online complaining about the malware paranoia too, especially on reddit, so I don't think it's just me!
No, you underestimate how huge the malware problem right now. People try publish fake download landing pages for shell scripts or even Claude code on https://playcode.io every day. They pay for google ads $$$ to be one the top 1 position. How Google ads allow this? They can’t verify every shell script.
No I am not joking. Every time you install something, there is a risk you clicked a wrong page with the absolute same design.
He's not talking about malware awareness. He's talking about a bug i've seen too which requires Claude justifying for *every* tool call to add extra malware-awareness turns. Like every file read of the repo we've been working on
Note that these are the "chat" system prompts - although it's not mentioned I would assume that Claude Code gets something significantly different, which might have more language about malware refusal (other coding tools would use the API and provide their own prompts).
Of course it's also been noted that this seems to be a new base model, so the change could certainly be in the model itself.
The "Picking delaySeconds" section is quite enlightening.
I feel like this explains about a quarter to half of my token burn. It was never really clear to me whether tool calls in an agent session would keep the context hot or whether I would have to pay the entire context loading penalty after each call; from my perspective it's one request. I have Claude routinely do large numbers of sequential tool calls, or have long running processes with fairly large context windows. Ouch.
> The Anthropic prompt cache has a 5-minute TTL. Sleeping past 300 seconds means the next wake-up reads your full conversation context uncached — slower and more expensive. So the natural breakpoints:
> - *Under 5 minutes (60s–270s)*: cache stays warm. Right for active work — checking a build, polling for state that's about to change, watching a process you just started.
> - *5 minutes to 1 hour (300s–3600s)*: pay the cache miss. Right when there's no point checking sooner — waiting on something that takes minutes to change, or genuinely idle.
> *Don't pick 300s.* It's the worst-of-both: you pay the cache miss without amortizing it. If you're tempted to "wait 5 minutes," either drop to 270s (stay in cache) or commit to 1200s+ (one cache miss buys a much longer wait). Don't think in round-number minutes — think in cache windows.
> For idle ticks with no specific signal to watch, default to *1200s–1800s* (20–30 min). The loop checks back, you don't burn cache 12× per hour for nothing, and the user can always interrupt if they need you sooner.
> Think about what you're actually waiting for, not just "how long should I sleep." If you kicked off an 8-minute build, sleeping 60s burns the cache 8 times before it finishes — sleep ~270s twice instead.
> The runtime clamps to [60, 3600], so you don't need to clamp yourself.
Definitely not clear if you're only used to the subscription plan that every single interaction triggers a full context load. It's all one session session to most people. So long as they keep replying quickly, or queue up a long arc of work, then there's probably a expectation that you wouldn't incur that much context loading cost. But this suggests that's not at all true.
Presumably because it has become extremely good at writing software, and if it succeeds at helping someone spread malware, especially one that could use Claude itself (via local user's plans) to self-modify and "stay alive", it would be nearly impossible to put back in the bottle.
Interesting that it's not a direct "you should" but an omniscient 3rd person perspective "Claude should".
Also full of "can" and "should" phrases: feels both passive and subjunctive as wishes, vs strict commands (I guess these are better termed “modals”, but not an expert)
That’s because Anthropic does not consider their model as having personality but rather that it simulates the experience of an abstract entity named Claude.
I knew these system prompts were getting big, but holy fuck. More than 60,000 words. With the 3/4 words per token rule of thumb, that's ~80k tokens. Even with 1M context window, that is approaching 10% and you haven't even had any user input yet. And it gets churned by every single request they receive. No wonder their infra costs keep ballooning. And most of it seems to be stable between claude version iterations too. Why wouldn't they try to bake this into the weights during training? Sure it's cheaper from a dev standpoint, but it is neither more secure nor more efficient from a deployment perspective.
I’m just surprised this works at all. When I was building AI automations for a startup in January, even 1,000 word system prompts would cause the model to start losing track of some of the rules. You could even have something simple like “never do X” and it would still sometimes do X.
Two things; the model and runtime matters a lot, smaller/quantized models are basically useless at strict instruction following, compared to SOTA models. The second thing is that "never do X" doesn't work that well, if you want it to "never do X" you need to adjust the harness and/or steer it with "positive prompting" instead. Don't do "Never use uppercase" but instead do "Always use lowercase only", as a silly example, you'll get a lot better results. If you've trained dogs ("positive reinforcement training") before, this will come easier to you.
I created a test evaluation (they friggen' stole the word harness) that runs a changed prompt comparing success pass / fail, the number of tokens and time of any change. It is an easy thing to do. The best part is I set up an orchestration pattern where one agent iterations updating the target agent prompts. Not only can it evaluate the outcome after the changes, it can update and rerun self-healing and fixing itself.
I assume the reason it’s not baked in is so they can “hotfix” it after release. but surely that many things don’t need updates afterwards. there’s novels that are shorter.
Yeah that was the original idea of system prompts. Change global behaviour without retraining and with higher authority than users. But this has slowly turned into a complete mess, at least for Anthropic. I'd love to see OpenAI's and Google's system prompts for comparison though. Would be interesting to know if they are just more compute rich or more efficient.
That's usually not how these things work. Only parts of the prompt are actually loaded at any given moment. For example, "system prompt" warnings about intellectual property are effectively alerts that the model gets. ...Though I have to ask in case I'm assuming something dumb: what are you referring to when you said "more than 60,000 words"?
The system prompt is always loaded in its entirety IIUC. It's technically possible to modify it during a conversation but that would invalidate the prefill cache for the big model providers.
You can cache K and V matrices, but for such huge matrices you'll still pay a ton of compute to calculate attention in the end even if the user just adds a five word question.
The acting_vs_clarifying change is the one I notice most as a heavy user. Older Claude would ask 3 clarifying questions before doing anything. Now it just picks the most reasonable interpretation and goes. Way less friction in practice.
Haven't had a chance to test 4.7 much but one of my pet peeves with 4.6 is how eager it is to jump into implementation. Though maybe the 4.7 is smarter about this now.
I had seen reports that it was clamping down on security research and things like web-scraping projects were getting caught up in that and not able to use the model very easily anymore. But I don't see any changes mentioned in the prompt that seem likely to have affected that, which is where I would think such changes would have been implemented.
I think it depends on how badly they want to avoid it. Stuff that is "We prefer if the model didn't do these things when the model is used here" goes into the system prompt, meanwhile stuff that is "We really need to avoid this ever being in any outputs, regardless of when/where the model is used" goes into post-training.
So I'm guessing they want none of the model users (webui + API) to be able to do those things, rather than not being able to do that just in the webui. The changes mentioned in the submission is just for claude.ai AFAIK, not API users, so the "disordered eating" stuff will only be prevented when API users would prompt against it in their system prompts, but not required.
I wonder if the child safety section "leaks" behavior into other risky topics, like malware analysis. I see overlap in how the reports mention that once the safety has been tripped it becomes even more reluctant to work, which seems to match the instructions here for child safety.
Before Opus 4.7, the 4.6 became very much unusable as it has been flagging normal data analysis scripts it wrote itself as cyber security risk. Got several sessions blocked and was unable to finish research with it and had to switch to GPT-5.4 which has its own problems, but at least is not eager to interfere in legitimate work.
edit:
to be fair Anthropic should be giving money back for sessions terminated this way.
Personally, as someone who has been lucky enough to completely cure "incurable" diseases with diet, self experimentation and learning from experts who disagreed with the common societal beliefs at the time - I'm concerned that an AI model and an AI company is planting beliefs and limiting what people can and can't learn through their own will and agency.
My concern is these models revert all medical, scientific and personal inquiry to the norm and averages of whats socially acceptable. That's very anti-scientific in my opinion and feels dystopian.
While I share your concern for a winners-take-all model getting bent, I do have an optimism that models we've never heard of plug away challenging conclusions in medical canon. We will have a popular vaccine denying AND vaccine authoring models.
> The new <acting_vs_clarifying> section includes: When a request leaves minor details unspecified, the person typically wants Claude to make a reasonable attempt now, not to be interviewed first.
Uff, I've tried stuff like these in my prompts, and the results are never good, I much prefer the agent to prompt me upfront to resolve that before it "attempts" whatever it wants, kind of surprised to see that they added that
I even have a specific, non-negotiable phase in the process where model MUST interview me, and create an interview file with everything captured. Plan file it produces must always include this file as an artifact and interview takes the highest precedence.
Otherwise, the intent gets lost somewhere in the chat transcript.
I've recently started adding something along the lines of "if you can't find or don't know something, don't assume. Ask me." It's helped cut down on me having to tell it to undo or redo things a fair amount. I also have used something like, "Other agents have made mistakes with this. You have to explain what you think we're doing so I can approve." It's kind of stupid to have to do this, but it really increases the quality of the output when you make it explain, correct mistakes, and iterate until it tells you the right outcome before it operates.
Edit: forgot "don't assume"
> I've tried stuff like these in my prompts, and the results are never good
I've found that Google AI Mode & Gemini are pretty good at "figuring it out". My queries are oft times just keywords.
Seriously, when you're conversing with a person would you prefer they start rambling on their own interpretation or would you prefer they ask you to clarify? The latter seems pretty natural and obvious.
Edit: That said, it's entirely possible that large and sophisticated LLMs can invent some pretty bizarre but technically possible interpretations, so maybe this is to curb that tendency.
> The latter seems pretty natural and obvious.
To me too, if something is ambigious or unclear when I'm getting something to do from someone, I need to ask them to clarify, anything else be borderline insane in my world.
But I know so many people whose approach is basically "Well, you didn't clearly state/say X so clearly that was up to me to interpret however I wanted, usually the easiest/shortest way for me", which is exactly how LLMs seem to take prompts with ambigiouity too, unless you strongly prompt them to not "reasonable attempt now without asking questions".
Socrates would agree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
I have a fun little agent in my tmux agent orchestration system - Socratic agent that has no access to codebase, can't read any files, can only send/receive messages to/from the controlling agent and can only ask questions.
When I task my primary agent with anything, it has to launch the Socratic agent, give it an overview of what are we working on, what our goals are and what it plans to do.
This works better than any thinking tokens for me so far. It usually gets the model to write almost perfectly balanced plan that is neither over, nor under engineered.
—So what would theoretically happen if we flipped that big red switch?
—Claude Code: FLIPS THE SWITCH, does not answer the question.
Claude does that in React, constantly starting a wrong refactor. I’ve been using Claude for 4 weeks only, but for the last 10 days I’m getting anger issues at the new nerfing.
Yeah this happens to me all the time! I have a separate session for discussing and only apply edits in worktrees / subagents to clearly separate discuss from work and it still does it
The eating disorder section is kind of crazy. Are we going to incrementally add sections for every 'bad' human behaviour as time goes on?
That part of the system prompt is just stating that telling someone who has an actual eating disorder to start counting calories or micro-manage their eating in other ways (a suggestion that the model might well give to an average person for the sake of clear argument, which would then be understood sensibly and taken with a grain of salt) is likely to make them worse off, not better off. This seems like a common-sense addition. It should not trigger any excess refusals on its own.
It feels like half of AI research is math, and the other half is coming up with yet another way to state "please don't do bad things" in the prompt that will sure work this time I promise.
Another way to think about it: every single user of Claude is paying an extra tax in every single request
Even better, adding it to the system prompt is a temporary fix, then they'll work it into post-training, so next model release will probably remove it from the system prompt. At least when it's in the system prompt we get some visibility into what's being censored, once it's in the model it'll be a lot harder to understand why "How many calories does 100g of Pasta have?" only returns "Sorry, I cannot divulge that information".
Just assume each model iteration incorporates all the censorship prompts before and compile the possible list from the system prompt history. To validate it, design an adversary test against the items in the compiled list.
Could be that Claude has particular controversial opinions on eating disorders.
LLMs have been trained to eagerly answer a user’s query.
They don’t reliably have the judgment to pause and proceed carefully if a delicate topic comes up. Hence these bandaids in the system prompt.
When you are worth hundreds of billions, people start falling over themselves running to file lawsuits against you. We're already seeing this happen.
So spending $50M to fund a team to weed out "food for crazies" becomes a no-brainer.
It is a no brainer. If a company of any size is putting out a product that caused cancer we wouldn't think twice about suing them. Why should mental health disorders be any different?
There are many, many companies out there putting out products that cause cancer. Think about alcohol, tobacco, internal combustion engines, just to name a few most obvious examples.
It's so shameful.
We let people buy kitchen knives. But because the kitchen knife companies don't have billions of dollars, we don't go after them.
We go after the LLM that might have given someone bad diet advice or made them feel sad.
Nevermind the huge marketing budget spent on making people feel inadequate, ugly, old, etc. That does way more harm than tricking an LLM into telling you you can cook with glue.
I don’t feel like that’s a reasonable analogy. Kitchen knives don’t purport to give advice. But if a kitchen knife came with a label that said ‘ideal for murdering people’, I expect people would go after the manufacturer.
Ad companies prompt injecting consumers. LLM companies countering with guardrails.
The alignment favors supporting healthy behaviors so it can be a thin line. I see the system prompt as "plan B" when they can't achieve good results in the training itself.
It's a particularly sensitive issue so they are just probably being cautious.
I want a hyperscaler LLM I can fine tune and neuter. Not a platform or product. Raw weights hooked up to pure tools.
This era of locked hyperscaler dominance needs to end.
If a third tier LLM company made their weights available and they were within 80% of Opus, and they forced you to use their platform to deploy or license if you ran elsewhere, I'd be fine with that. As long as you can access and download the full raw weights and lobotomize as you see fit.
Yup. Anyone who is surprised by this has not been paying attention to the centralization of power on the internet in the past 10 years.
I mean, that's what humans have always done with our morals, ethics, and laws, so what alternative improvement do you have to make here?
Imagine the kind of human that never adapts their moral standpoints. Ever. They believe what they believed when they were 12 years old.
Letting the system improve over time is fine. System prompt is an inefficient place to do it, buts it's just a patch until the model can be updated.
I did a follow on analysis with got 5.4 and opus 4.7 https://wasnotwas.com/writing/claude-opus-4-7-s-system-promp...
I'm curious as to why 4.7 seems obsessed with avoiding any actions that could help the user create or enhance malware. The system prompts seem similar on the matter, so I wonder if this is an early attempt by Anthropic to use steering vector injection?
The malware paranoia is so strong that my company has had to temporarily block use of 4.7 on our IDE of choice, as the model was behaving in a concerningly unaligned way, as well as spending large amounts of token budget contemplating whether any particular code or task was related to malware development (we are a relatively boring financial services entity - the jokes write themselves).
In one case I actually encountered a situation where I felt that the model was deliberately failing execute a particular task, and when queried the tool output that it was trying to abide by directives about malware. I know that model introspection reporting is of poor quality and unreliable, but in this specific case I did not 'hint' it in any way. This feels qualitatively like Claude Golden Gate Bridge territory, hence my earlier contemplation on steering vectors. I've been many other people online complaining about the malware paranoia too, especially on reddit, so I don't think it's just me!
No, you underestimate how huge the malware problem right now. People try publish fake download landing pages for shell scripts or even Claude code on https://playcode.io every day. They pay for google ads $$$ to be one the top 1 position. How Google ads allow this? They can’t verify every shell script.
No I am not joking. Every time you install something, there is a risk you clicked a wrong page with the absolute same design.
He's not talking about malware awareness. He's talking about a bug i've seen too which requires Claude justifying for *every* tool call to add extra malware-awareness turns. Like every file read of the repo we've been working on
Note that these are the "chat" system prompts - although it's not mentioned I would assume that Claude Code gets something significantly different, which might have more language about malware refusal (other coding tools would use the API and provide their own prompts).
Of course it's also been noted that this seems to be a new base model, so the change could certainly be in the model itself.
Claude Code system prompt diffs are available here: https://cchistory.mariozechner.at/?from=2.1.98&to=2.1.112
(URL is to diff since 2.1.98 which seems to be the version that preceded the first reference to Opus 4.7)
The "Picking delaySeconds" section is quite enlightening.
I feel like this explains about a quarter to half of my token burn. It was never really clear to me whether tool calls in an agent session would keep the context hot or whether I would have to pay the entire context loading penalty after each call; from my perspective it's one request. I have Claude routinely do large numbers of sequential tool calls, or have long running processes with fairly large context windows. Ouch.
> The Anthropic prompt cache has a 5-minute TTL. Sleeping past 300 seconds means the next wake-up reads your full conversation context uncached — slower and more expensive. So the natural breakpoints:
> - *Under 5 minutes (60s–270s)*: cache stays warm. Right for active work — checking a build, polling for state that's about to change, watching a process you just started.
> - *5 minutes to 1 hour (300s–3600s)*: pay the cache miss. Right when there's no point checking sooner — waiting on something that takes minutes to change, or genuinely idle.
> *Don't pick 300s.* It's the worst-of-both: you pay the cache miss without amortizing it. If you're tempted to "wait 5 minutes," either drop to 270s (stay in cache) or commit to 1200s+ (one cache miss buys a much longer wait). Don't think in round-number minutes — think in cache windows.
> For idle ticks with no specific signal to watch, default to *1200s–1800s* (20–30 min). The loop checks back, you don't burn cache 12× per hour for nothing, and the user can always interrupt if they need you sooner.
> Think about what you're actually waiting for, not just "how long should I sleep." If you kicked off an 8-minute build, sleeping 60s burns the cache 8 times before it finishes — sleep ~270s twice instead.
> The runtime clamps to [60, 3600], so you don't need to clamp yourself.
Definitely not clear if you're only used to the subscription plan that every single interaction triggers a full context load. It's all one session session to most people. So long as they keep replying quickly, or queue up a long arc of work, then there's probably a expectation that you wouldn't incur that much context loading cost. But this suggests that's not at all true.
Presumably because it has become extremely good at writing software, and if it succeeds at helping someone spread malware, especially one that could use Claude itself (via local user's plans) to self-modify and "stay alive", it would be nearly impossible to put back in the bottle.
I have started to notice this malware paranoia in 4.6, Boris was surprised to hear that in comments, probably a bug
more likely the paranoia behavior was backported. current gen is already being used for bug bounties.
New knowledge cutoff date means this is a new foundation model?
Yes, but doesn't the token change mean that?
Interesting that it's not a direct "you should" but an omniscient 3rd person perspective "Claude should".
Also full of "can" and "should" phrases: feels both passive and subjunctive as wishes, vs strict commands (I guess these are better termed “modals”, but not an expert)
That’s because Anthropic does not consider their model as having personality but rather that it simulates the experience of an abstract entity named Claude.
I knew these system prompts were getting big, but holy fuck. More than 60,000 words. With the 3/4 words per token rule of thumb, that's ~80k tokens. Even with 1M context window, that is approaching 10% and you haven't even had any user input yet. And it gets churned by every single request they receive. No wonder their infra costs keep ballooning. And most of it seems to be stable between claude version iterations too. Why wouldn't they try to bake this into the weights during training? Sure it's cheaper from a dev standpoint, but it is neither more secure nor more efficient from a deployment perspective.
I’m just surprised this works at all. When I was building AI automations for a startup in January, even 1,000 word system prompts would cause the model to start losing track of some of the rules. You could even have something simple like “never do X” and it would still sometimes do X.
Two things; the model and runtime matters a lot, smaller/quantized models are basically useless at strict instruction following, compared to SOTA models. The second thing is that "never do X" doesn't work that well, if you want it to "never do X" you need to adjust the harness and/or steer it with "positive prompting" instead. Don't do "Never use uppercase" but instead do "Always use lowercase only", as a silly example, you'll get a lot better results. If you've trained dogs ("positive reinforcement training") before, this will come easier to you.
I created a test evaluation (they friggen' stole the word harness) that runs a changed prompt comparing success pass / fail, the number of tokens and time of any change. It is an easy thing to do. The best part is I set up an orchestration pattern where one agent iterations updating the target agent prompts. Not only can it evaluate the outcome after the changes, it can update and rerun self-healing and fixing itself.
I assume the reason it’s not baked in is so they can “hotfix” it after release. but surely that many things don’t need updates afterwards. there’s novels that are shorter.
Yeah that was the original idea of system prompts. Change global behaviour without retraining and with higher authority than users. But this has slowly turned into a complete mess, at least for Anthropic. I'd love to see OpenAI's and Google's system prompts for comparison though. Would be interesting to know if they are just more compute rich or more efficient.
There are different sections in the markdown for different models. It is only 3-4000 words
That's usually not how these things work. Only parts of the prompt are actually loaded at any given moment. For example, "system prompt" warnings about intellectual property are effectively alerts that the model gets. ...Though I have to ask in case I'm assuming something dumb: what are you referring to when you said "more than 60,000 words"?
The system prompt is always loaded in its entirety IIUC. It's technically possible to modify it during a conversation but that would invalidate the prefill cache for the big model providers.
What you're describing is not how these things usually work. And all I did was a wc on the .md file.
Surely the system prompt is cached across accounts?
You can cache K and V matrices, but for such huge matrices you'll still pay a ton of compute to calculate attention in the end even if the user just adds a five word question.
I would assume so too, so the costs would not be so substantial to Anthropic.
> And it gets churned by every single request they receive
It gets pretty efficiently cached, but does eat the context window and RAM.
The acting_vs_clarifying change is the one I notice most as a heavy user. Older Claude would ask 3 clarifying questions before doing anything. Now it just picks the most reasonable interpretation and goes. Way less friction in practice.
I have the opposite experience. It now picks the most inane interpretation or make wild assumptions and I have to keep interrupting it more than ever.
Haven't had a chance to test 4.7 much but one of my pet peeves with 4.6 is how eager it is to jump into implementation. Though maybe the 4.7 is smarter about this now.
I really hate that change, it's now regularly picking bad interpretation instead of asking.
Yeah, that really feels like a choice that should be user preference.
I had seen reports that it was clamping down on security research and things like web-scraping projects were getting caught up in that and not able to use the model very easily anymore. But I don't see any changes mentioned in the prompt that seem likely to have affected that, which is where I would think such changes would have been implemented.
I think it depends on how badly they want to avoid it. Stuff that is "We prefer if the model didn't do these things when the model is used here" goes into the system prompt, meanwhile stuff that is "We really need to avoid this ever being in any outputs, regardless of when/where the model is used" goes into post-training.
So I'm guessing they want none of the model users (webui + API) to be able to do those things, rather than not being able to do that just in the webui. The changes mentioned in the submission is just for claude.ai AFAIK, not API users, so the "disordered eating" stuff will only be prevented when API users would prompt against it in their system prompts, but not required.
I wonder if the child safety section "leaks" behavior into other risky topics, like malware analysis. I see overlap in how the reports mention that once the safety has been tripped it becomes even more reluctant to work, which seems to match the instructions here for child safety.
It's built into the model, not part of the system prompt. You'll get the same refusals via the API.
Before Opus 4.7, the 4.6 became very much unusable as it has been flagging normal data analysis scripts it wrote itself as cyber security risk. Got several sessions blocked and was unable to finish research with it and had to switch to GPT-5.4 which has its own problems, but at least is not eager to interfere in legitimate work.
edit: to be fair Anthropic should be giving money back for sessions terminated this way.
> edit: to be fair Anthropic should be giving money back for sessions terminated this way.
I asked it for one and it told me to file a Github issue.
Which I interpreted as "fuck off".
Personally, as someone who has been lucky enough to completely cure "incurable" diseases with diet, self experimentation and learning from experts who disagreed with the common societal beliefs at the time - I'm concerned that an AI model and an AI company is planting beliefs and limiting what people can and can't learn through their own will and agency.
My concern is these models revert all medical, scientific and personal inquiry to the norm and averages of whats socially acceptable. That's very anti-scientific in my opinion and feels dystopian.
While I share your concern for a winners-take-all model getting bent, I do have an optimism that models we've never heard of plug away challenging conclusions in medical canon. We will have a popular vaccine denying AND vaccine authoring models.