# \[GREP\]\[#XE5\] - Lot's of cheats on the code examples tab **URL:** \ **Category:** Challenges\ **Tags:** challenge:grep\ **Created:** [February 20, 2025, 10:29am UTC](https://forum.codecrafters.io/t/grep-xe5-lots-of-cheats-on-the-code-examples-tab/5026 "2025-02-20T10:29:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 7
**Author:** ![rohitpaulk](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex003/user_avatar/forum.codecrafters.io/rohitpaulk/32/6_2.png) [@rohitpaulk](https://forum.codecrafters.io/u/rohitpaulk)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2025, 10:35pm UTC](https://forum.codecrafters.io/t/grep-xe5-lots-of-cheats-on-the-code-examples-tab/5026/7 "2025-02-20T22:35:02Z")
Quick update here - we took a closer look at this, and these aren’t cases that would trigger anti-cheat. Anti-cheat invokes patterns that users are unlikely to have handled (quantifiers are what we use I think), and checks if the answers are correct. Since these solutions are hardcoding patterns, the anti-cheat case doesn’t trigger – it still fails on “unknown” patterns. We already have a mechanism to filter these kind of solutions out when displaying “Concise code examples” (more on that here: ["Concise" code examples](https://forum.codecrafters.io/t/concise-code-examples/443)) – it looks like this wasn’t properly configured for the 3 stages in backreferences. We’re fixing this! For xe5 & Python specifically, this should already be fixed. The concise examples at the top should now not be the kind that use `re`. We’ll backpropagate this to other stages shortly! --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.codecrafters.io/t/grep-xe5-lots-of-cheats-on-the-code-examples-tab/5026)._