claude --verbose can help you investigate a Claude Code session, but Anthropic’s CLI reference does not establish that verbose output records hook invocations or proves a hook completed. Without hook-specific evidence, seeing ordinary CLI output is not enough to confirm that a hook ran.
What does verbose output tell you?
Anthropic describes --verbose as enabling verbose logging with full turn-by-turn output and says it can help with debugging. The Claude Code CLI reference does not specify that this output includes hook events, indicates that a hook was invoked, or confirms successful completion.
![Claude AI for Beginners Bible: [5 in 1] The Ultimate Guide to Automate Your Work, Save Hours Every Week, and Use AI for Real-World Results](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/415+fSJacsL._SL160_.jpg)
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
That distinction matters: general session output is not automatically evidence of a particular hook event. Do not treat a verbose log—or another general CLI output format—as proof unless hook-specific documentation or a reproducible observation shows what that output means.
What would count as evidence that a hook ran?
“Ran” can describe several different things. To answer “Did my Claude Code hook run?”, first decide which claim you need to establish:
#1 Best Overall
- Configured: a hook is present in the relevant configuration. This alone does not establish that Claude Code invoked it.
- Invoked: the hook process was started for the event under investigation.
- Completed: the process finished. Completion alone does not establish that it succeeded.
- Had the intended effect: the expected change or action occurred. An effect may help verify an outcome, but without a reliable link to the relevant session and event it does not, by itself, prove which hook caused it.
Strong verification would tie a hook-specific event to the session and project configuration being checked, and distinguish invocation from completion. If success matters, evidence should also establish the result—such as exit status or a documented effect. The CLI reference cited above does not say which artifacts, if any, provide those details for hooks.
How can you tell whether your hook executed?
The available official CLI documentation does not provide a hook-specific verification procedure. It therefore does not support a definitive sequence of commands or UI steps for confirming invocation, completion, or success. Avoid presenting any such steps as Anthropic-documented behavior unless current hook documentation supports them.
A controlled test could provide evidence if it produces an observable result that can be tied to the hook event and session being examined. But without a documented or reproduced test, a visible change, a configured hook, or verbose turn-by-turn output should not be promoted into proof of execution.
Recommended Free Tools
What remains uncertain
The CLI reference documents verbose logging as a general debugging aid; it does not resolve the hook-specific question. That limitation is about what this page establishes, not proof that Claude Code has no hook-related logs or other verification mechanisms. The page supplies no publication or revision date, so its details may also vary with the current CLI version.
For a conclusive answer, consult current hook-specific Claude Code documentation or verify the behavior with a controlled, observable test. Until one of those establishes what artifact confirms invocation and success, the precise way to prove that a hook ran remains unresolved.
Quick Recap
Rank #4
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
