Should AI Be Listed as a Co-Author in Your Git Commits? (www.dariuszparys.com)

Developers are debating whether AI assistants should be explicitly credited in Git commits when they make substantial contributions. The conversation flared when Anthropic’s Claude Code began automatically appending a Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com> line to commits, prompting mixed reactions. The author argues for transparency: just as you cite Stack Overflow or another repo when you borrow code, you should acknowledge AI when it writes full functions, implements features, or generates the bulk of a commit. That matters because it gives future maintainers context, signals the need for careful review (AI outputs can miss edge cases or introduce odd abstractions), and helps establish good norms as AI becomes a routine part of development workflows. Practically, the author recommends lightweight, consistent signals: use Co-Authored-By for major AI-written features, tag commits with “[AI]”, and add an “AI Involvement” section in PRs, while skipping attribution for trivial autocomplete or syntax fixes. They counter common objections—tools don’t require credit, the developer is ultimately responsible, or it clutters history—by noting attribution and responsibility aren’t mutually exclusive and a single commit line is minimal noise. As AI tooling advances, the post frames attribution as a pragmatic step toward transparency, safer maintenance, and establishing community standards around machine-assisted coding.