1.6%

of 444 commits were committed by an AI agent — a floor, not an estimate

1.6% agent · top contributor 57.1%4 contributors

team

A small group is using agents. Adoption has spread beyond one person but is not project-wide.

agent commits

437

human commits

agent contributors

57.1%

largest contributor

Assisted or autonomous

7assisted

0autonomous

Assisted — a developer’s identity authored the commit and the agent added itself as co-author. The agent ran git commit during a working session, with a person there. Autonomous — a bot identity is the author, no human in the loop. Across the whole index, 93.7% of agent commits are assisted.

Agent share by month

Feb26

Mar26

Apr26

May26

Jun26

Jul26

Aug26

Sep26

Peak month: 4%. Bars are scaled to that peak, not to 100%.

Which agents

Claude Code

Anthropic

1.6%

Verify it yourself

Sample commits that matched. Every one links to GitHub — check the trailers.

cd4cdc69fix: prevent IndexError in adaptive relocation with auto_saveClaude Code
00897dadfeat(mcp): add optional session_id parameter to open_sessionClaude Code
273c8c2ffix: emit valid XPath node test for ID elements in full-path modeClaude Code

What was excluded

Commits in window	586
Merge commits removed	−142
CI / dependency bots removed	−0
Considered	444

Bots are excluded from the denominator entirely. Counting dependabot as “AI-written code” is the fastest way to produce a meaningless number.

How this was measured

Measured over February–August 2026, cloned directly. Detection is deterministic string matching against signatures agents write about themselves — no heuristics, no style analysis. Merge commits and CI bots are excluded from the denominator. The figure is a floor: squash merges strip trailers, so real usage is higher. Contributor counts are aggregate — no individual is named.

Run it yourself: npx qmmit-cli D4Vinci/Scrapling

Scan another repository

Try