- Dataset
- 2026-10-27-catalog-ai-v2
- Ruleset
- b2e8889c66f7
- Scanned
- 2026-10-27
- Window
- February–September 15, 2026
🤖 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻 for 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 how to 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 an end-to-end 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻-𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗟𝗟𝗠 & 𝗥𝗔𝗚 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺 using 𝗟𝗟𝗠𝗢𝗽𝘀 best practices: ~ 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘥𝘦 + 12 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴-𝘰𝘯 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘴
01Result
decodingai-magazine/llm-twin-course ↗decodingai-magazine/llm-twin-course AI coding statistics: 0%
No signed agent commits found
No agent signatures were found in the last 2 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.
02Drivers
What shapes this result
Mode, timing, and detected signatures show whether the result reflects broad adoption or one concentrated workflow.
03Evidence
Inspect the matches
Public commit samples let you inspect the signatures behind the aggregate result.
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 | 2 |
| Merge commits removed | −0 |
| CI / dependency bots removed | −0 |
| Considered | 2 |
Bots are excluded from the denominator entirely. Agent attribution requires a literal supported signature; no code-style inference is used.
Continue exploring
Related coding-agent evidence
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 decodingai-magazine/llm-twin-course