{"version":"2.1.289","anchor":"find-command-safety-check-tightened-for-bash-permission-auto","canonical_anchor":"find-command-safety-check-tightened-for-bash-permission-auto","heading":"Fewer find commands are allowed without asking","tier":"notice","area":"Permissions","scope":"individual","heads_up":true,"url":"https:\/\/changelogs.core-directive.com\/v\/2.1.289\/e\/find-command-safety-check-tightened-for-bash-permission-auto","release_url":"https:\/\/changelogs.core-directive.com\/v\/2.1.289","markdown":"### Fewer `find` commands are allowed without asking\n\nClaude Code now asks before running some `find`, `test`, `jobs` and `set` commands that it used to treat as safe to run automatically\n\n**Unclear.** Exactly which `find` options are treated as read differently by different versions is not stated.\n\n**What**\n\nClaude Code can run some shell commands without asking you first when it judges them read-only, or when a permission rule such as `Bash(find:*)` allows them. The checks behind that are stricter now, and these cases now ask for permission:\n\n- `find` options that different versions of `find` read differently\n\n- `find`, `test`, `jobs` or `set` arguments that contain redirect characters or end in a backslash\n\n- Wildcard characters in a `find` name-style argument, unless the pattern is quoted\n\n- `test` arguments containing `$`, which are checked more strictly\n\n`find` options that run commands or change files still cannot be allowed automatically by a `Bash(find:*)` rule.\n\n**Why**\n\nThese close ways a `find` command could hide an action that runs something or changes files behind a rule meant only to allow searching. Expect some `find` commands that used to run silently to ask for approval.\n\n- Area: Permissions\n- Tier: You'll notice\n- Useful: 2\/5\n- Signal: 1\/5\n- Scope: individual\n- Heads-up: yes"}