5.9%

of 119 commits were committed by an AI agent — a floor, not an estimate

5.9% agent · top contributor 100%1 contributor

individual

One person is driving this. The headline number reflects a single contributor's workflow, not a project-wide shift.

agent commits

112

human commits

agent contributors

100%

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

Jul26

Peak month: 26.3%. Bars are scaled to that peak, not to 100%.

Which agents

Claude Code

Anthropic

5.9%

Verify it yourself

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

3616a029add a comment clarifying that RoPE here rotates by -theta (transpose of thClaude Code
2ce972a3fix token_bytes calculation to use raw token bytes instead of round-trippiClaude Code
5e43f1ebdocs: note that MPS handles bf16 fine on recent macOS (opt in via NANOCHATClaude Code

What was excluded

Commits in window	146
Merge commits removed	−27
CI / dependency bots removed	−0
Considered	119

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 karpathy/nanochat

Scan another repository

Try