How to deal with fully LLM-generated merge requests

[Akseli Lahtinen]

On Thursday 10 September 2026 22:17:19 Eastern European Summer Time 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, these co-authored-by are mostly a marketing trick.

I really don't care what model a contributor used, I only care about what
**the contributor** thinks!

> 
> Nate
> 
> 

- Akseli