1.4%

of 72 commits were committed by an AI agent — a floor, not an estimate

Too little recent activity to publish. Only 72 commits landed in this window, so the percentage is noisy. Repositories below 100 are excluded from the index for this reason.

1.4% 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

human commits

agent contributors

100%

largest contributor

Assisted or autonomous

1assisted

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

Peak month: 6.3%. Bars are scaled to that peak, not to 100%.

Which agents

Claude Code

Anthropic

1.4%

Verify it yourself

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

b2a1d33fIncrease chardet upper limit to 8Claude Code

What was excluded

Commits in window	102
Merge commits removed	−2
CI / dependency bots removed	−28
Considered	72

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 psf/requests

Scan another repository

Try