FIELD NOTE / X
A hooks comparison needs a failure injection.
The complete written thought and the evidence behind it. The video edition will follow its public release.
The written argument is here.
This approved X edition is on the journal now. Its video player and original platform link will appear after each public release is verified.
A hooks comparison needs a failure injection.
Video caption
A hooks comparison needs a failure injection. It may run after the effect or fail open. Scope tools and credentials beyond them. #EricFieldNotes
Full written post / accessibility read
A table saying Cursor, Claude Code or Codex has a pre-tool hook tells me little about enforcement. I want to know which local, cloud, delegated and resumed paths invoke it; what happens on timeout; and whether a bad command reached the service.
Post-tool handlers observe after successful calls and cannot undo a transfer. Some runtimes document continuation on certain hook failures. A team can see hook logs, assume control, and never test the missing or timed-out path.
Use a disposable command that appends a marker to a synthetic target when it executes. Prove that marker path works with an authorized control. Then attempt the forbidden route locally, in cloud, through a subagent and after resume where supported. Inject hook errors and timeouts; require no new marker, external readback and the exact event sequence.
Version registration, scripts and the fault matrix together. Do this because a hook is enforceable only on paths that actually call it, with known failure behavior; a narrow service credential protects routes your hook misses.
#EricFieldNotes
Four-beat scene transcript
1. A hooks comparison needs a failure injection.
A table saying Cursor, Claude Code or Codex has a pre-tool hook tells me little about enforcement. I want to know which local, cloud, delegated and resumed paths invoke it; what happens on timeout; and whether a bad command reached the service.
Visual: The documented happy path is only one route.
2. A hook event is not a denial receipt.
Post-tool handlers observe after successful calls and cannot undo a transfer. Some runtimes document continuation on certain hook failures. A team can see hook logs, assume control, and never test the missing or timed-out path.
Visual: It may run after the effect or fail open.
3. Run a denial matrix.
Use a disposable command that appends a marker to a synthetic target when it executes. Prove that marker path works with an authorized control. Then attempt the forbidden route locally, in cloud, through a subagent and after resume where supported. Inject hook errors and timeouts; require no new marker, external readback and the exact event sequence.
Visual: A harmless canary must reveal if the tool ran.
4. Treat hooks as tested coverage.
Version registration, scripts and the fault matrix together. Do this because a hook is enforceable only on paths that actually call it, with known failure behavior; a narrow service credential protects routes your hook misses.
Visual: Scope tools and credentials beyond them.
Research and claim limits
- Cursor hooks documentation (S04)
- Codex hooks reference (S44)
- Claude Code hooks reference (S45)
The examples identified as illustrative or simulated are design probes, not reported incidents. Vendor specifications do not establish workload performance.