Editorial policy

Sources

The primary source is the official Claude Code documentation. Every page names its source and links to it.

Where behaviour is undocumented, the page says so rather than presenting an observation as a documented fact. An unverified claim is left out.

Not a copy

Explanations are written here, not lifted. Commands and configuration keys are reproduced exactly, because those are facts rather than prose. The value of a page is in the framing for one question — a page that restates a paragraph of documentation would not be worth publishing.

Staying current

Claude Code changes quickly, and a page with a stale command is worse than no page, because a reader will trust it. Every page carries a review date, and the build enforces it: a page warns after 90 days and fails the build after 180.

That means a page cannot quietly rot. It either gets re-checked or it stops shipping.

The date alone would be vague, because Claude Code ships several versions a week. So each page also names the version it was checked against: the newest one the official documentation described on the day of the review. A page that says "before v2.1.257" was compared with the documentation as it stood for that version, and the number moves only when the page is re-checked.

Risk

Where a command can lose data or remove a safety boundary, the page says so before it shows the command, and names a narrower alternative where one exists. Dangerous commands are neither hidden nor presented as routine.

Corrections

If a page is wrong, the fix and a new review date ship together. Corrections are not silent edits to a page that still claims an old review date.