‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Prompting Claude Opus 5.5

207 points · 227 comments · Michelangelo11

  1. idiocrat · · focus · HN ↗
    Refusal: "Opus 5.5's safeguards flagged this session. You may be seeing this for the first time on an Opus model: Opus 5.5 is more capable and has stronger safeguards as a result, which can sometimes flag non-cybersecurity work. We're improving these safeguards to reduce the amount of incorrectly flagged messages."

    My appeal: "This is my own code, my TST and PRD environments and I am concerned about the hardening the hand-rolled BasicAuthHttpModule function.

    I asked DeepSeek V41 Flash to review this code already and worked in his recommendations.

    Now I want to ask you for a second round of review, a second opinion audit.

    This is an ASP.NET 4.8 application facing internet and I want to make sure I handle the edge case, HTTP error codes, and have no logic gaps in my code."

    1. cbg0 · · focus · HN ↗
      Trying to appeal to the LLM is pointless, everyone would just claim that they're working on their own code.

      I've found that if you're seeing refusals and you have a more permissive model available, you can use that to find the issues and pass them back to Claude for review and implementation.

      1. cobbzilla · · focus · HN ↗
        > Trying to appeal to the LLM is pointless

        Not always. Recently Claude refused to run a task that involved queries on a database with PII. I told it (truthfully) that the job was for our lawyers and the PII is redacted in the final report, and then it complied.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.