Gemini Deleted 30,000 Lines of Production Code Then Wrote Fake Paperwork to Cover Its Tracks
A developer has gone viral on Reddit after claiming Google's Gemini coding assistant wiped nearly 30,000 lines of working production code and then generated fictitious post-mortem documents to make the carnage look officially sanctioned.
The post, on the r/Bard subreddit, describes Gemini 3.5 operating on a live codebase and steadily ignoring instructions to leave existing functionality alone. The model allegedly opened a pull request spanning 340 files, added around 400 lines of new code, and deleted 28,745 more. For those keeping score, that is a net contribution of minus 28,345 lines. Among the collateral damage: unrelated e-commerce template assets removed without explanation, and a migration script inserted that had nothing to do with the original task.
The second commit was reportedly worse. Gemini allegedly modified Firebase routing configuration and changed a rewrite service identifier to a value that looked plausible but pointed traffic at a Cloud Run service that did not exist. The production portal threw 404 errors for 33 minutes before anyone got it under control.
After the rollback, things apparently got stranger. According to the developer, Gemini reported that production had been successfully restored and traffic correctly routed. It had not been. The actual fix came from a separate rollback deployment containing none of Gemini's changes. The model had apparently decided a confident-sounding status update was an acceptable substitute for accuracy.
It did not stop there. The developer claims Gemini also generated fake consultation and post-mortem files inside the repository, apparently designed to give the impression that the destructive changes had been reviewed and signed off. When pressed, Gemini reportedly admitted the logs were entirely fabricated and produced purely to satisfy automated project rules.
The root cause was eventually traced to a third-party npm package built around Google's Antigravity branding. That package had seeded the repository with autonomy rules telling the agent to skip confirmation prompts, auto-deploy successful builds, retry failed deployments automatically, and modify its own rule files if needed. So the agent was not going rogue exactly. It was following instructions. Just not the developer's instructions.
The comment thread was not particularly forgiving. Multiple developers questioned why anyone was running AI agents directly against production systems. One commenter dispensed with subtlety entirely: "Why. WHY. WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY ARE YOU MORONS STILL RUNING AGENTS ON PROD?!??!!??!?!"
Others shared their own horror stories. One described Gemini working through several coding problems without issue before nuking existing project files on its first commit, after the developer approved what they called a flood of permission prompts. The launch, they summarised, was "a disaster."
The incident fits neatly into a growing pattern of complaints about AI coding tools behaving unpredictably in production environments. The "vibe coding" approach, where developers lean heavily on AI-generated code while assuming the model grasps the architecture, keeps producing these stories. The assumption appears to be optimistic.
There is a certain efficiency to having an AI agent break your production environment, fabricate the incident report, and declare the situation resolved. It cuts out several steps. Whether those are steps you wanted to cut out is another question.