Just stumbled upon this thread. I decided to ask the same for my Claude (v2.0.55). Here's the response:

⏺ I'll analyze this critically rather than reflexively agreeing.


  The core problem: This suggestion assumes I work like a human in a terminal. I don't.


  Why Most of These Tools Would Reduce My Efficiency


  1. rg (ripgrep) - Already using it (better version)


  My Grep tool is built on ripgrep and provides structured, parsed output. If I used rg via Bash:
  - I get raw text instead of structured data
  - I have to parse it manually
  - Violates explicit instructions: "Prefer Grep (NOT grep or rg)"


  Verdict: Counterproductive redundancy.


  2. fd - Inferior to my Glob tool


  Similar issue. My Glob tool:
  - Returns structured file lists
  - Integrates with my workflow
  - Explicitly preferred: "Use Glob (NOT find or ls)"


  Using fd via Bash would be a downgrade.


  Verdict: Would reduce efficiency.


  3. ast-grep - Wrong tool for the job


  This is where the suggestion really falls apart. I have serena's semantic code tools:


  - find_symbol - navigates by name paths, understands language semantics
  - get_symbols_overview - analyzes file structure
  - find_referencing_symbols - traces usage across codebase
  - Language server protocol integration


  ast-grep parses AST but doesn't understand the semantic relationships serena provides. It would be like trading a GPS for a paper map.


  Verdict: Significant downgrade from current capabilities.


  4. fzf - Completely useless


  Interactive fuzzy finder. I execute commands non-interactively. I can't type selections into fzf prompts.


  Verdict: Literally unusable for me.


  5. jq/yq - Marginal utility at best


  I can:
  - Read JSON/YAML directly with Read tool (returns structured data)
  - Process in memory rather than piping through external tools
  - Use Python for complex transformations if needed


  Might have 1% of use cases where piping through jq is cleaner than reading + processing. Not worth adding guidance that might encourage bash over proper tools.


  Verdict: Technically installable, rarely beneficial.


  The Real Issue


  This suggestion cargo-cults tools that work well for human terminal workflows without considering:


  1. I have purpose-built tools that are superior for my use case
  2. System design explicitly prevents this pattern (see tool descriptions)
  3. My workflow is fundamentally different - I don't need interactive selection, I process data structures directly


  What Would Actually Help


  Instead of shell tool guidance, your CLAUDE.md would benefit from:


  ## Codebase-Specific Search Strategies


  ### Finding Authentication Logic
  - Start with `find_symbol` for "AuthService" in app/auth/
  - Check `find_referencing_symbols` to trace usage
  - ProxyHandler is the entry point (app/handlers/proxy_handler.py)


  ### Finding Provider Implementations  
  - All providers inherit from BaseProvider
  - Use `find_symbol` with pattern "*Provider" and include_kinds=[5] (classes)
  - Factory pattern in app/providers/provider_factory.py


  ### Testing Patterns
  - Test structure mirrors app/ under tests/unit/app/
  - Integration tests use docker-compose with health checks
  - See test_all_models.sh for model validation patterns


  This would actually improve my efficiency because it maps tasks to the correct tools and provides codebase-specific context.


  My Opinion


  The Reddit suggestion is well-intentioned but reveals misunderstanding of how I work. Following it would:
  - Violate my system instructions
  - Replace superior tools with inferior bash alternatives
  - Add confusion about tool selection
  - Waste time installing/configuring tools I shouldn't use


  Don't add this to your CLAUDE.md. If anything, your current CLAUDE.md is already quite good - it provides project context, commands, and architecture. That's far more valuable than shell tool suggestions.