Dataset: 2026-09-18-v3.0
Ruleset: b2e8889c66f7
Scanned: 2026-09-16
Window: February–September 15, 2026

Local to this browser

01Result

LadybirdBrowser/ladybird ↗

LadybirdBrowser/ladybird AI coding statistics: 0%

of 10,315 commits in February–September 15, 2026 were committed by an AI agent — a floor, not an estimate

No signed agent commits found

No agent signatures were found in the last 10,315 considered commits. That is a real result, not a failure to measure.

It does not mean no AI was used here. A developer can use an agent and commit by hand without leaving a detectable git signature.

agent commits

10,311

other considered commits

agent contributors

75%

largest contributor

02Drivers

What shapes this result

Mode, timing, and detected signatures show whether the result reflects broad adoption or one concentrated workflow.

No agent signatures were detected, so there are no agent, mode, or timing drivers to break down.

Which agents

Agent	Vendor	Commits	Share
Claude Code	Anthropic	4	0%

03Evidence

Inspect the matches

Public commit samples let you inspect the signatures behind the aggregate result.

Matched commit samples

c710ff5a on GitHubLibWeb: Fire textarea input events immediately instead of debouncingClaude Code
1354eb1a on GitHubLibWeb: Resolve var() in shorthands before pseudo-element filteringClaude Code
9be298e3 on GitHubLibWeb: Use document resolution context in canvas set_fontClaude Code

04Method

What entered the denominator

The result begins with commit history, removes merges and routine automation, and reports literal agent signatures as a lower bound.

Exclusion ledger

Commits in window	10,345
Merge commits removed	−0
CI / dependency bots removed	−30
Considered	10,315

Bots are excluded from the denominator entirely. Agent attribution requires a literal supported signature; no code-style inference is used.

05Provenance

Pinned to a source state

This observation names the repository state, release, and detector that produced it. Use these identifiers when reproducing or citing the result.

Dataset release: 2026-09-18-v3.0
Scan date: 2026-09-16
Ruleset: sha256:b2e8889c66f72c18a61839f0bf1a9f77b5481ba2def044dba33c797b2f2bdcae
Canonical repository: LadybirdBrowser/ladybird
Default branch: master
Resolved HEAD: f418e0989de322d575f9a3b83f07060d902b83a6 ↗
Resolved: 2026-09-16
Measurement window: February–September 15, 2026

Download observation JSONDeterministic export · same values as this page

06Peer context

Position among comparable repositories

The cohort uses the same release and measurement window, then narrows to the repository’s ecosystem and removes low-activity observations.

CohortC/C++ · 127 eligible repositories · at least 100 considered commits2026-09-18-v3.0 · February–September 15, 2026 · 51 of 178 ecosystem repositories excluded

Agent-commit share position17th percentile

Midrank percentile; equal shares split the tied positions.

Repository: 0%
Cohort median: 0.4%
Share rank: 84 / 127

0th50th100th

Percentile = (repositories below + half of 44 tied repositories) ÷ 127.

Continue exploring

Claude Code commitsBrowse repositories with detected Claude Code signatures →GitHub AI commit analyzerInspect another repository with the same evidence model →

Reproduce this observation

Run the same detector locally.

Deterministic signature matching; no code-style inference. Squash merges can remove trailers, so this result remains a measured floor.

npx qmmit-cli LadybirdBrowser/ladybird

Scan another repository

Try