I've set permissions of the existing unit tests to read-only for this reason, since I've seen all the recent Opus do this.
Sometimes it will also not careif a unit test fails, calling it "errant" or "legacy" or something, where it then removes it from the list (not sure how to get around that one, other than a read only launcher).
I found it eagerly reversing existing product decisions like changing a user given date into created date, since it thought creating something that is in the past is incorrect. This was not even related to the task at hand at all. I noticed this kind of stuff happens more with ultracode for some reason.
Comments
Opus 5 tries to modify the unit tests as a cover to its own regressions - thinking its own logic is correct and the test must be wrongly specified
I've set permissions of the existing unit tests to read-only for this reason, since I've seen all the recent Opus do this.
Sometimes it will also not careif a unit test fails, calling it "errant" or "legacy" or something, where it then removes it from the list (not sure how to get around that one, other than a read only launcher).
I found it eagerly reversing existing product decisions like changing a user given date into created date, since it thought creating something that is in the past is incorrect. This was not even related to the task at hand at all. I noticed this kind of stuff happens more with ultracode for some reason.
Any subagents-based workflow is prone to this, because of the fragmented context(by design).