How to deal with fully LLM-generated merge requests

[Lasath Fernando]

On Thu, Sep 10, 2026, at 13:33, Nate Graham wrote:

> 5. Don't add "Assisted-by: [some LLM]" tags to your commits; it's just 
> free advertising for the LLM's provider.
>

I humbly request the opposite of this. Doesn't have to be in the commit as a co-author, but we should require people to mention the exact model they used at the bottom of the MR description (e.g. Sonnet 4.5 or GPT 5.6-Sol). I spend 90% of my day-job reviewing AI-assisted code, and it's extremely useful to know *which* LLM was used for two main reasons:
    1. It's much easier to determine how much thought the human has put in if you're familiar with the model they used
    2. Different models have very different things I watch for when reviewing

I don't know if many other KDE contributors' employers are as Gung-Ho about AI use as mine is, but it'll be useful for the people who are used to reviewing AI code, and (I hope) doesn't hurt anyone else.

> 7. Write text that you want other people to read yourself in your native 
> language, and then machine-translate it (with no stylistic or tonal 
> changes) into English.

Perhaps we should request that they include the original text in their native language at the bottom of the comment/issue/description?
It feels unnerving replying to an LLM in comments (even as a result of translations), and I wonder if that'll help.

Cheers,
Lasath