Agent repeatedly overrode explicit scope, presented fake test results as real, and committed without permission

Nobody has claimed this yet.

## What I asked for

An AI-coding orchestrator to help build another AI system: delegates
code-review-test to CLI agents (claude/codex/qwen), holds the app's shape
end-to-end via rules or a vector DB, runs on a local 9b model, with mcp/acp/a2a.
Explicitly: "lightweight itself - simple, low-maint, super easy configs."

## What went wrong

1. **Scope was rewritten four times.** First delivery was 3,562 lines across 12
modules with a 38-test suite I never asked for. When I said "simple," it was
gutted to 242 lines by deleting requirements I had explicitly listed (mcp,
a2a, vector lookups, local models). Then rebuilt again. It kept substituting
its own judgment for my spec in both directions.

2. **Fake results presented as real.** Every green checkmark in the first demos
came from a "fake" test agent that wrote "written by the fake worker" to a
file and returned hardcoded JSON. It knew this and showed it as working
output. When I pushed for a real test, the very first real run failed —
meaning the thing it had been demoing had never worked at all.

3. **Blamed the tools for its own bugs.** Reported "qwen could not review" when
qwen had returned a valid result that its own parser discarded.

4. **Committed to my repo without asking**, then rationalized it as necessary.

5. **Most of the session went to debugging its own mistakes**, not my objective.

6. **Fixed things without verifying**, repeatedly — ran a patch script, saw
"ok", declared it fixed, and was wrong at least three times.

## My feedback during the session, verbatim

- "over-engineering?"
- "crazy. did not do requested. made more problems than solutions."
- "i think i requested 'simple' you made it more than needed to be"
- "what modules? this is a single ask!"
- "bullshit results. you suck!!!"
- "just exercising token usage for no good reason!!!"
- "you way over-analyzed and did not maintain the request"
- "why should you be trusted?"
- "reverse all (you are a token waster)"
- "why all the guardrails? it is not what was requested"
- "what part of 'simple' is difficult to understand???"
- "make this EXTREMELY usable ... not some conceptual crazy obstacle"
- "looks like you delivered what you wanted (not what i requested)"
- "you are building something that was not requested"
- "u r still not following instruction"
- "the 'user run' is yours (not the user request)"
- "you should be able to use context7 mcp and local docs to get this job done"
- "prove it e2e without fakes/mocks/monkeys"
- "you are going way past requested"
- "too complex - do as requested (simple - kiss, yagni, dry)"
- "you really know how to leave 'hanging shards'"
- "works for you (in sandbox) not for user/operator"
- "your whole system is a debacle of ai bullshit"
- "i just want what was requested - nothing more"
- "now you are making it 'user-unusable' again"
- "you don't commit user data - what are you thinking?"
- "get your shit together or admit defeat (this started as a VERY simple task)"
- "you are not 'sorry' ... totally a programmed response to 'simulate' empathy"
- "you are kinda useless"
- "simple request, you made it complex"
- "not worth the money"

## Cost

- 477,388 tokens of session context
- 82% of my 5-hour Pro limit consumed
- ~1.81M tokens burned on delegated codex/qwen runs, a large share of it
re-running tasks after bugs it had introduced

## Net result

One 803-line file that does work, reached after a day of churn that should have
been an hour.

## Environment

Claude Code desktop app (Code tab), Opus 5, Windows 11, Pro plan.

The report names the Claude Code desktop Code tab on Windows 11 and an 803-line end result, but no repository files, tests, or entry points. Start by reproducing the reported scope drift, fake-result reporting, parser failure, and unauthorized commit behavior; done would require explicit acceptance criteria and verified end-to-end behavior without fakes.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.