claude code hooks reference: start with the exact job

A Claude Code hooks reference is useful when it explains the current event contract, matching, payload fields, command execution, and exit behavior without pretending that a copied table is timeless. Readers should verify exact names against the official reference for their installed release before shipping automation.

This page owns the intent “look up hook events, payloads, exit behavior, and matching.” It does not replace the broader Claude Code topic or adjacent implementation decisions. Keeping that boundary visible prevents two pages from answering the same search job with slightly different wording.

How the claude code hooks reference control surface works

Hook behavior begins with an event emitted by the host. Configuration selects eligible commands, the host provides structured input, and the process result influences logging or control according to the documented contract. Unsupported assumptions about stdin, environment, or exit codes are common sources of silent failure.

For claude code hooks reference, the closest architectural context is Claude Code Hooks. Read that dependency when the current decision needs a parent workflow or prerequisite. This anchor follows the reader's next question instead of repeating the page keyword mechanically.

FIG. 01 / Conceptual model

claude code hooks reference: mechanism and verification path

Process model for claude code hooks reference: Event, Matcher, Input schema, Command, Exit contract
Conceptual model: Event → Matcher → Input schema → Command → Exit contract. Equal stages show sequence, not measured time or effort.

Versioned technical reference: a reproducible working sequence

Use this claude code hooks reference sequence as a reviewable method, not as a claim that one prompt guarantees look up hook events, payloads, exit behavior, and matching. Pin the relevant official documentation, keep sensitive values out of the record, and connect every permission expansion to a named requirement in this workflow.

  1. Start from the lifecycle point the automation must observe or control.
  2. Confirm the current event and matcher syntax in official documentation.
  3. Validate the payload defensively and avoid logging confidential values.
  4. Exercise success, intentional block, malformed input, and timeout behavior.

After the claude code hooks reference sequence, the next implementation detail is Claude Code Notifications With Hooks. That destination owns its narrower search job, while this article stays responsible for look up hook events, payloads, exit behavior, and matching.

For claude code hooks reference, write the expected signal before each action. A successful command can still produce the wrong artifact, and a fluent agent summary can omit scope drift. The check must observe what this search job actually changes: a diff, test, typed contract, rendered interface, structured trace, or explicit denied path.

Keep evidence beside the claude code hooks reference result

For each enabled hook, keep a versioned contract fixture containing the event name, matcher, redacted payload, command, timeout, expected stdout or stderr treatment, and expected exit path. Tests should cover missing fields and non-zero termination.

Minimum evidence ledger for claude code hooks reference
QuestionRecord
What was attempted?Bounded task and starting state
What could act?Tools, permissions, sandbox, and credentials by name only
What changed?Artifacts, paths, or external side effects
What proves the result?Independent check, reviewer decision, and remaining uncertainty

The claude code hooks reference ledger needs a version and date because the documented contract can evolve. Its attached search metric describes demand for this intent, not product quality. This article makes no benchmark, success-rate, or cost claim; any later test must publish a protocol and the evidence required to inspect it.

FIG. 02 / Decision aid

claude code hooks reference: evidence and control decision

Decision aid for claude code hooks reference using Informational, Mutating, Blocking, Failure fallback
Decision aid: compare Informational, Mutating, Blocking, Failure fallback. Qualitative placement is illustrative and contains no measured performance data.

Test the failure paths before expanding access

For claude code hooks reference, the architecture flags these recurring risks: Version drift changes the documented behavior; Permissions are skipped or over-broadened; Claude Code, subagents, and the Agent SDK are conflated. Convert each one into a denied or recovery case tied to look up hook events, payloads, exit behavior, and matching. The resulting trace should identify the attempted action, the layer that stopped it, the evidence retained, and the safe next step.

  • Use a disposable fixture for commands that may mutate files or external state.
  • Remove secrets and confidential source from logs before sharing evidence.
  • Confirm that malformed input and missing dependencies fail visibly.
  • Stop when the next action needs new authority or an unverified assumption.

When the claude code hooks reference reader reaches the related boundary, continue with Claude Code. That destination owns its decision while this page remains canonical for look up hook events, payloads, exit behavior, and matching.

A decision rule for claude code hooks reference

Use this reference to locate the relevant contract, then confirm it in current official docs and built-in behavior. Never copy a hook from an older project without reviewing its data exposure and blocking semantics.

Before adopting this claude code hooks reference workflow, name its owner, the evidence that justifies its permissions, the review that confirms look up hook events, payloads, exit behavior, and matching, and the event that triggers revalidation. Those four answers turn this specific capability into an operating choice a team can maintain.