31.1%

of 254 commits were committed by an AI agent — a floor, not an estimate

31.1% agent · top contributor 68.4%5 contributors

team

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

agent commits

175

human commits

agent contributors

68.4%

largest contributor

Assisted or autonomous

79assisted

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

Mar26

Apr26

May26

Jun26

Jul26

Aug26

Sep26

Peak month: 84.6%. Bars are scaled to that peak, not to 100%.

Which agents

Claude Code

Anthropic

31.1%

Verify it yourself

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

fa3c83dddocs(readme): 更新火山引擎赞助文案Claude Code
614415e5chore(assets): 删除已下架赞助商 ccsub 与 rootflowai 的横幅图Claude Code
32c9e309docs(readme): 姊妹项目表格补齐全部星标徽章Claude Code

What was excluded

Commits in window	273
Merge commits removed	−19
CI / dependency bots removed	−0
Considered	254

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 jnMetaCode/agency-agents-zh

Scan another repository

Try