By ByteBot
Developer Hugo Daniel was banned from Claude Code in January 2026 while using the AI tool to create a scaffolding framework that included a CLAUDE.md configuration file. The ban triggered instantly when Anthropic’s automated systems flagged his work as “prompt injection”—even though he was doing exactly what Claude Code is designed for: building AI agent tools. The irony is hard to miss: using Claude to build for Claude got him banned by Claude.
The Meta-Instruction Catch-22
Hugo was working on a scaffolding tool that would generate CLAUDE.md files with instructions for his “boreDOM” framework. He acted as a “human-in-the-loop middleware” between two Claude instances—Claude A writing instructions meant to direct Claude B. When Claude A started writing in ALL CAPS, Anthropic’s abuse detection systems mistook the meta-instructions for an attack.
The error message was brief and final: “You are a disabled organization.” No explanation. No warning. No appeal that worked. Hugo submitted appeals via Google Forms and support emails—both went unanswered. He got his €220 refunded, but his account stayed banned. His appeal vanished into what he calls “the black hole.”
Here’s what triggered the ban—a simple CLAUDE.md structure:
# Project Context for boreDOM Framework
## Instructions for AI Agent
WHEN WRITING CODE:
- USE THE BOREDOM FRAMEWORK
- FOLLOW THESE PATTERNS
- ALWAYS VALIDATE WITH ZEST.jsThe problem isn’t that this is malicious. The problem is that automated systems can’t tell the difference between malicious prompt injection and legitimate scaffolding. When one AI writes instructions for another AI—exactly what agent frameworks do—it looks like an attack to Anthropic’s filters. Claude Code is perfect for building AI scaffolding, but using it for that gets you banned.
Related: AI Verification Bottleneck: 96% of Devs Distrust Code
Walled Garden Enforcement
Hugo’s ban isn’t an isolated incident. On January 9, 2026 at 02:20 UTC, Anthropic blocked all third-party tools using Claude Pro/Max subscriptions—no warning, no migration path. OpenCode (56k GitHub stars), Cursor, Windsurf, and others were cut off instantly. Even xAI employees using Claude via Cursor were blocked.
DHH called it “very customer hostile.” AWS Hero AJ Stuyvenberg described Anthropic as “speedrunning the journey from forgivable startup to loathsome corporation before any exit!” Developers canceled $200/month subscriptions en masse. OpenCode shipped ChatGPT Plus support within hours.
The timeline shows escalation: August 2025 (Anthropic revoked OpenAI’s Claude API access), December 2025 (started tightening safeguards against third-party tools), January 9, 2026 (mass blocking), January 2026 (Hugo and others banned for false positives). This isn’t about preventing abuse—it’s about ecosystem control. Anthropic wants developers using Claude Code exclusively, on their terms, with no alternatives allowed.
The Cost of Collateral Damage
The economics explain the aggression. A $200/month Claude Max subscription provided unlimited tokens, but equivalent API usage would cost $3,200+. Claude Opus 4.5 API pricing sits at $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens. Third-party tools like OpenCode removed artificial speed limits, enabling overnight autonomous coding loops. Anthropic closed the arbitrage: if you want unlimited access, pay API rates.
The crackdown has clear economic motivations, but the collateral damage includes developers like Hugo who weren’t gaming pricing—just building tools. The false positive problem is inherent to prompt injection detection. Industry best practices target under 2% false positive rates. AI-based filters—which are themselves LLMs—produce both false positives and false negatives. There’s no perfect solution.
But Anthropic’s approach maximizes collateral damage. Instant bans. No warnings. No human review. No functional appeals process. OpenAI admits “robustness to adversarial attacks is a long-standing challenge for machine learning and AI, making this a hard, open problem.” They’re researching Instruction Hierarchy to help models distinguish trusted from untrusted instructions. Meanwhile, Anthropic prioritizes enforcement speed over accuracy, punishing innocent users to catch potential abusers.
Where Developers Go from Here
The crackdown is driving developers away. OpenAI’s more permissive approach—supporting open standards like Model Context Protocol (MCP), AGENTS.md, and the Agentic AI Foundation (AAIF)—positions it as the developer-friendly alternative. When OpenCode got blocked, it added ChatGPT Plus support immediately. When developers face arbitrary bans for legitimate work, they stop building on your platform.
The obra/superpowers framework (33.3k GitHub stars) exemplifies the agentic coding ecosystem that Anthropic’s policies threaten. It’s a methodology specifically designed to make Claude Code more effective—yet using it at scale risks triggering the same false positives that banned Hugo. Trust is hard to earn and easy to lose. Once developers fear arbitrary bans for legitimate work, they won’t build critical workflows on your platform.
