Follow Discord
Sweep 22 Oct 2026 · 04:32Z Build v2.1.308 527 read Stable v2.1.308 Latest v2.1.308 Next v2.1.308 Feeds RSS JSON llms.txt llms-full.txt Unofficial

Claude Code v2.1.289 ·

find -rm is no longer auto-approved as a read-only command

Claude Code now treats find ... -rm like find ... -delete: it is not auto-allowed as read-only and is flagged as destructive

Group of 4 You'll notice Improvements
JSON All of v2.1.289
You'll noticeTier: how much it should matter to you
1Useful: my rating, 1 to 5
1Signal: worth watching, 1 to 5
PermissionsArea: what it touches
ImprovementsKind: in v2.1.289,
ImprovementsSection of the release

What

Claude Code automatically allows some shell commands without asking you first, because they only read files. A find command (which searches for files) was on that list unless it used an action such as -delete or -exec. The -rm action has now been added to the blocked actions.

  • Read-only check: the auto-allow pattern for find and the set of blocked find actions both now include -rm. The pattern now reads -delete\b|-rm\b|-exec\b|-execdir\b|-ok\b|-okdir\b|-fprint0?\b|-fls\b|-fprintf\b|-files0-from\b, so a find using -rm is no longer treated as safe.
  • Spacing: the pattern now accepts only spaces and tabs between arguments ([ \t]+ instead of \s), so a line break can no longer separate find arguments.
  • Destructive-command list: the pattern that marks commands as destructive used to match only find ... -delete. It now matches find ... -rm too, so those commands get the same handling as -delete.
  • Remote switch: the -rm check sits behind a small helper, called from the bash read-only check and from one other place. It treats -rm as blocked unless the remote flag tengu_warm_sunrise has been explicitly set to false by a server. Nothing has been read about the state of this flag.

Why

Before, a find ... -rm command could match the read-only pattern and run without a permission prompt. It now goes through the normal permission check, and a server-side flag exists that could undo this.

See this entry in the whole of v2.1.289 →

Feedback