AI Pulse · Under the Radar

If you’ve ever opened a CLAUDE.md file and found 47 instructions nobody can explain, a new arXiv paper just gave that mess a name: catastrophic remembering. The researchers formalized what anyone managing prompts already knows. Adding a new instruction is easy. Figuring out whether you can safely delete an old one without breaking something downstream costs exponential effort, so the file just grows until someone throws it out and starts over.

The timing matters because Boris Cherny went viral the same week with a blunt prescription: delete your CLAUDE.md, your custom skills, your hooks, then watch what the model does without them. Most teams discover they were hauling around instructions that stopped mattering months ago, or that the base model now handles natively. The paper backs that intuition with theory, showing the cost of pruning scales as O(2^|D|), where D is the number of dependencies between instructions. In plain terms, the more tangled your prompt history, the harder it becomes to clean up without testing every possible interaction.

This is not abstract. If your team appends a new rule every time something goes wrong, you are building technical debt that compounds faster than code. The model changes, your business changes, but the instruction file only grows. Catastrophic remembering means you eventually hit a wall where nobody knows what still applies, and the safest move is a rewrite. Tools that version prompt logic and flag unused instructions belong in an AI command centre for exactly this reason. You need visibility into what you are asking the model to remember, and a way to test whether it still needs to.

The paper is early stage and the term may not stick, but the problem is real. If your prompt files feel like archaeological digs, you are not alone.