How to deal with fully LLM-generated merge requests

[Nate Graham]

On 9/10/26 1:02 PM, Lasath Fernando wrote:
> 
> 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.

If the exact model used is a relevant data point, then the contributor 
would have already violated the "don't vibe-code" guideline, no?

As the guidelines say, if you're using an LLM responsibly, nobody should 
be able to tell you did. If it's so obvious that someone wants to know 
what model you used because they know exactly how each model messes 
things up in its own way, you did a bad job.


Nate