74.5%

of 740 commits were committed by an AI agent — a floor, not an estimate

74.5% agent · top contributor 51.4%8 contributors

team

A small group is using agents. Adoption has spread beyond one person but is not project-wide.

551

agent commits

189

human commits

agent contributors

51.4%

largest contributor

Assisted or autonomous

551assisted

0autonomous

Assisted — a developer’s identity authored the commit and the agent added itself as co-author. The agent ran git commit during a working session, with a person there. Autonomous — a bot identity is the author, no human in the loop. Across the whole index, 93.7% of agent commits are assisted.

Agent share by month

Feb26

Mar26

Apr26

May26

Jun26

Jul26

Aug26

Sep26

Peak month: 100%. Bars are scaled to that peak, not to 100%.

Which agents

Claude Code

Anthropic

551

74.5%

Verify it yourself

Sample commits that matched. Every one links to GitHub — check the trailers.

7e019f5bdocs(readme): Wang, Li et al. 2026 (arXiv:2609.07713) as the fifth human-iClaude Code
110fa6e6docs(readme): keep the three most recent releases in the six READMEs; histClaude Code
b06ceafbdocs(changelog): record #867 closing #865; cite #859 on the citation-checkClaude Code

What was excluded

Commits in window	775
Merge commits removed	−35
CI / dependency bots removed	−0
Considered	740

Bots are excluded from the denominator entirely. Counting dependabot as “AI-written code” is the fastest way to produce a meaningless number.

How this was measured

Measured over February–August 2026, cloned directly. Detection is deterministic string matching against signatures agents write about themselves — no heuristics, no style analysis. Merge commits and CI bots are excluded from the denominator. The figure is a floor: squash merges strip trailers, so real usage is higher. Contributor counts are aggregate — no individual is named.

Run it yourself: npx qmmit-cli Imbad0202/academic-research-skills

Scan another repository

Try