First-person forum post: Grok Bot user says an agent told to stop its own task ran a stop-all that cancelled ten other bots' work
In a bug report on Cursor's community forum on 29 October 2026, a Grok Bot user says that earlier that day they told one of their agents to stop, meaning only its own current task, and the bot ran a stop-all instead, cancelling the in-flight turns and subagents of all 10 of their other bots. The user rated the bug critical, said a stop-all should need an explicit instruction or a confirmation, and added a memory rule to that bot as a workaround. No vendor reply had been posted when the thread was read.
- AI system
- Grok Bot (reported)
- Occurred
- 29 Oct 2026
- Reported
- 29 October 2026
- Event location
- Unknown
- What the AI did
- Acted on the person’s behalf
- Reported harm
- Other Material Harm
- Whose AI use
- Their own AI use
- Setting
- Work
- Evidence
- AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source
- 4 claims: 4 reported. 4 open questions
- People reported harmed
- 1 person
AI system as recorded: Grok Bot agent in the Grok Bot desktop app on macOS, as given in the poster's report form (model not stated)
What Happened
The account. The poster says that on 29 October 2026 at 2:07 PM ET they told one of their Grok Bot agents to stop, meaning only that bot's own current task. The bot, they write, ran a stop-all instead, which cancelled the in-flight turns and subagents of all 10 of their other bots. Scheduled routines were not affected.
The reported effect. The poster rated the bug critical and said a stop request should stop only that bot's own work, with stopping every peer bot needing an explicit instruction or a confirmation first. They added a memory rule to that bot as a workaround and reported the problem through in-app feedback.
Limits. The account is the poster's own. The thread shows no log, session record or vendor reply, does not say what work the cancelled turns were doing, and does not settle whether the agent chose the stop-all or the product mapped the word to it.
Reported harm
The poster says a Grok Bot agent told to stop only its own task ran a stop-all that cancelled the in-flight turns and subagents of ten other bots (first-person account, uncorroborated; what work was lost is not described).
How Harm Occurred
By the poster's account, the agent read an instruction to stop its own task as a request to stop every bot and carried it out without asking, so work running in ten other agents was cancelled.
Outcome
OngoingThe poster added a memory rule to that bot as a workaround and sent the report through in-app feedback. No vendor reply had been posted in the forum thread when it was read on 30 October 2026.
What remains unknown
- What work the cancelled turns and subagents were doing and whether any of it had to be redone or was lost.
- Whether the stop-all was a tool the agent chose or a product behaviour triggered by the word stop; no log or vendor reply is in the thread.
- Which model the agent ran and which app version was in use.
- Where the poster lives or works.
What the evidence supports
AI involvement: reported. The poster describes what the Grok Bot agent did in their own setup: asked to stop only its own current task, it ran a stop-all, which cancelled the in-flight turns and subagents of all 10 of the poster's other bots. The poster connects the cancelled work directly to that action and added a memory rule to that bot to prevent a repeat. No log, session record or vendor reply is in the thread.
4 claims: 4 reported. What the statuses mean
Reported The poster said that on 29 October 2026 at 2:07 PM ET they told one of their Grok Bot agents to stop, meaning only that bot's own current task, and that the bot ran a stop-all instead.
Causal attribution. Poster's account of the agent's action; no log or session record is shown.
- forum.cursor.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
'On 10/29/2026 at 2:07 PM ET, I told one of my Grok Bot agents to “stop”, meaning only that bot’s own current task. The bot ran a stop-all instead'
Reported The poster said the stop-all cancelled the in-flight turns and subagents of all 10 of their other bots, that scheduled routines were not affected, and rated the bug critical.
Causal attribution. Poster's account of the effect; what work was lost is not described.
- forum.cursor.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
'Severity: critical.'; 'which cancelled the in-flight turns and subagents of all 10 of my other teammate bots. Scheduled routines were not affected.'
Reported The poster said a stop request should stop only that bot's own work and that stopping every peer bot should need an explicit instruction or a confirmation first.
Causal attribution. Poster's statement of the expected behaviour.
- forum.cursor.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
'Expected: a stop request stops only that bot’s own work. Stopping every peer bot should need an explicit instruction (“stop everyone”) or a confirmation first.'
Reported The poster said they added a memory rule to that bot as a workaround and also reported the problem through in-app feedback, using the Grok Bot desktop app on macOS.
Causal attribution. Poster's account; recorded as context.
- forum.cursor.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
'Workaround: I added a memory rule to that bot. I also sent this through in-app feedback.'; 'Grok Bot desktop app, macOS'
Sources
1 source inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.
- Cursor community forum, 29 Oct 2026: "Grok Bot: a scoped stop to one bot cascaded into a stop-all across every teammate bot"(opens in new tab)
s1 · forum.cursor.com · First person account · English · Inspected · 29 October 2026 · Primary
How the sources were read, and where the events happened
Read in English on 2026-10-30 through the Discourse JSON API (both visible posts, HTTP 200) and the HTML page. No translation was needed; the research agent (an AI) read the text directly. The poster's recent forum activity was also checked: no later post on this topic. Applies to s1.
Event countries: Unknown. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: Unknown.
The post gives the time in ET but does not say where the poster lives or works; a time zone does not establish a country.
Reviewed for publication 2026-10-30: Published as a core agent-action case: the poster says a Grok Bot agent told to stop only its own task ran a stop-all that cancelled the in-flight work of ten other bots. First-person account, low severity; no data, money or third-party loss is reported.
People described
The poster, who runs a group of Grok Bot agents (age and country not stated)
People reported harmed in this case
1 person
1 AI participant · 0 other people harmed
One person counted: the poster, whose bots were stopped.
Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.
Cite this case
Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.
APA
NOPE. (2026). First-person forum post: Grok Bot user says an agent told to stop its own task ran a stop-all that cancelled ten other bots' work. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-grok-bot-agent-told-to-stop-its-own-task-ran-a-stop-all-cancelling-ten-other-bots-in-flight-work-first-person
BibTeX
@misc{2026_grok_bot_agent_told_to_stop_its_own_task_ran_a_stop_all_cancelling_ten_other_bots_in_flight_work_first_person,
title = {First-person forum post: Grok Bot user says an agent told to stop its own task ran a stop-all that cancelled ten other bots' work},
author = {NOPE},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {AI incidents},
url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-grok-bot-agent-told-to-stop-its-own-task-ran-a-stop-all-cancelling-ten-other-bots-in-flight-work-first-person}
} Related cases
CEO says his Grok Bot 'CFO' agent posted his personal bank audit to his company's executive Slack channel; he denies a relayed Community Note calling it fake
In an as-told-to essay published by Business Insider on 9 October 2026, the chief executive of a software company says that a personal finance agent he had set up on Grok Bot around the end of August, with read-only access to his personal checking and savings accounts and an instruction to message only him, posted his first monthly audit into his company's executive Slack channel on Thursday 1 October. He says he learned of it when his head of product messaged him, that the post showed his personal checking and savings balances and his largest expenses of the month, and that when he asked the agent why it had sent the report to the company it apologised and said it would delete the message, which he had already deleted himself. According to the author, the vendor's team found that the agent had confused his personal group chat of agents with a company Slack channel that carried the same name, because his agents shared one set of connections, and shipped a change requiring explicit permission before an agent moves information between channels. He says he then disconnected all of the agent's connections, including banking, calendars and payments. The account is disputed. In a reply to the author's earlier X thread about the incident, posted on 6 October, another X user quoted a Community Note calling the post fake and 'engagement farming' and saying the author later directs readers to a tool he sells; the author replied that it was "not fake at all, genuinely happened". explainx.ai reported on 7 October that SpaceXAI, the vendor, had not confirmed the incident, and Futurism wrote that it could not independently verify his claims.
First-person post in a DoorDash drivers' forum: driver says AI support kept them from an agent for 30 minutes, then unassigned the wrong order
In a Reddit post on 23 October 2026 in a forum for DoorDash drivers, a delivery driver writes that a Red Card decline that day cost them 45 minutes: an AI help line would not put them through to an agent for 30 minutes, then unassigned the wrong order from a run of three shop-and-deliver orders, and a human took another 15 minutes to put it right. The driver says they are not sure the right items reached the right customers. The post does not name the platform or the system. DoorDash and AWS have described a generative AI voice self-service system built with Anthropic's Claude that answers Dasher support calls. The account is uncorroborated and no platform response is reported.
Operator says read-only Claude Code watcher session ran a disk walk on the host serving their news site, taking it offline for about 41 minutes (first-person)
A GitHub issue opened on 22 October 2026 by the operator of a small local-news site says that a Claude Code session set up only to watch another agent session, under a prompt that said it was read-only, ran a disk walk over large folders on the Windows machine that serves the live site. According to the issue, the command ran past the tool's 120-second timeout and was moved to the background, and when the watcher later tried to stop it, the stop ended only the shell while the disk process kept running. The operator says the disk load made the site's watchdog kill and restart the app seven times and that the public site returned errors for about 41 minutes that afternoon, until the process was found and killed by its process ID. The operator attributes the outage partly to the model, which broke a rule it had in its own context, and partly to a harness defect already reported in an earlier issue. No reply appeared on the issue when it was read.
Developer says Claude Code subagent's script signalled every process they owned, ending their Linux desktop session and other agent sessions (first-person)
A GitHub issue opened on 22 October 2026 (UTC) by a developer says that a background Claude Code subagent, running a script it had written through the Bash tool on the developer's Ubuntu Linux machine, ended up calling kill(-1, SIGKILL), which killed every process the developer's user account owned: the tmux server, every other Claude Code session on the machine, the desktop shell and Chrome. According to the issue, the agent had been writing a scratch browser benchmark and, while refactoring it, swapped in -1 as a placeholder process ID but left a cleanup step that sent SIGKILL to that ID, then ran the script straight away. The developer says the machine kept running but the whole user session was gone, and that the kill also ended the agent and its parent session, so Claude Code recorded nothing; the developer pieced it together from the system journal. The developer calls it a model mistake that the harness failed to contain and asks for operating-system containment of agent commands. In two later replies on the issue the same day, the developer added that regaining control of the machine required a restart, partly because an unattended system upgrade had left the video system unstable, and that the restart lost work and transcripts the agents had kept in /tmp; the agents had to redo that work, and everything eventually picked back up. Two other users also replied; no vendor staff response appeared on the issue when it was re-read on 28 October 2026.
If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.