5 comments

  • spuz 2 hours ago
    > A git repository is already a history of versions each carrying a provenance marker — every revision of the file, in order, with the author of the change that made it.

    Maybe I'm missing how people use AI these days but when I have an agent working locally, all git commits have my authorship attached.

    • drusepth 1 hour ago
      A /precommit tool can be very powerful -- not only can it run the tests, do light code review on its own, spin up sub-agents to review performance/architecture/etc impacts, but it can also write hilariously-verbose commit messages once everything passes, detailing not only what changed but why it changed.. tagged with Claude as a co-author.
    • eighttrigrams 1 hour ago
      I take care of that in two ways, 1) is via claude hooks, I make sure these are tagged as claude, 2) my sandboxed agents have git env vars set, with the same effect.
      • spuz 1 hour ago
        Does Claude run git commit on every change it makes? Doesn't that pollute your git history?
        • eighttrigrams 1 hour ago
          Although that would be an option (I've considered commit on every edit at one point), what I actually ended up doing is that I hook into all Bash tool calls, look if there's a git commit in there, and if so, I prepend it with the right git env variables.
  • alansaber 2 hours ago
    Cool, we do the same thing, but we also denote when a line is "AI generated but was modified by a human" (aka human made anything upwards of a 1 character change).
    • eighttrigrams 1 hour ago
      I'll probably be annoyed enough soon that I want that level of granularity, too
  • gritzko 4 hours ago
    Interesting. I use annotations for that. But even if agents ignore them 1 out of 100 cases, I have enough cases here to see it happen.
  • krupkinmaxim 1 hour ago
    [flagged]
  • vancekai 3 hours ago
    [dead]