3.7%

of 1,017 commits were committed by an AI agent — a floor, not an estimate

3.7% agent · top contributor 36.8%10 contributors

org-wide

Adoption is broad. Many contributors are committing agent-authored work, which is what a real organisational rollout looks like.

agent commits

979

human commits

agent contributors

36.8%

largest contributor

Assisted or autonomous

38assisted

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

Jan26

Feb26

Mar26

Apr26

May26

Jun26

Jul26

Aug26

Sep26

Peak month: 11.4%. Bars are scaled to that peak, not to 100%.

Which agents

Claude Code

Anthropic

3.7%

Verify it yourself

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

d80608f3libfetchers: emit fetchToStore copy/hash as structured actFetchToStore actClaude Code
a906dd5dlibstore: fix env var when leniently accepting deferred outputClaude Code
c1f4aba5libstore: check derivation type before hashing outputsClaude Code

What was excluded

Commits in window	1,707
Merge commits removed	−651
CI / dependency bots removed	−39
Considered	1,017

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 NixOS/nix

Scan another repository

Try