How to deal with fully LLM-generated merge requests

[Vlad Zahorodnii]

Hi,

On 9/10/26 10:17 PM, Nate Graham wrote:
> 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. 

Agreed.

Vlad