3.3%

of 61 commits were committed by an AI agent — a floor, not an estimate

Too little recent activity to publish. Only 61 commits landed in this window, so the percentage is noisy. Repositories below 100 are excluded from the index for this reason.

3.3% agent · top contributor 100%1 contributor

individual

One person is driving this. The headline number reflects a single contributor's workflow, not a project-wide shift.

agent commits

human commits

agent contributors

100%

largest contributor

Assisted or autonomous

2assisted

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

Aug26

Peak month: 4.5%. Bars are scaled to that peak, not to 100%.

Which agents

GitHub Copilot

GitHub

3.3%

Verify it yourself

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

9fd541deAdd CLOSE decision for PRs with <15 GitHub stars (#1924)GitHub Copilot
89babdfaFix copilot review instructions to stop asking users to regenerate readme GitHub Copilot

What was excluded

Commits in window	64
Merge commits removed	−3
CI / dependency bots removed	−0
Considered	61

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 matteocrippa/awesome-swift

Scan another repository

Try