Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

  • Hacker News
  • Eh, I don't want the tools I use to stamp their names on everything. It's also not uncommon for me to switch between GPT and Claude or different models in the harness if one of them isn't doing well. GPT-5.6 Terra has been doing a significantly better job at writing concise PR bodies and commit messages than Claude's usual multi paragraph word soup.

    I don't need "Created by Claude Code 1.2.3, Opus 4.8 inside tmux inside ghostty on macOS ## on Mac Book Pro 2019 by git 123 in /Users/nijave/repo"

    If you want session context, commit the session or prompt or add a git note. I think opaque URIs are the wrong approach unless they're to an issue tracker with more details. Proprietary URIs are not easily usable and interoperable with other tools. Commited information should still be valid and useful in 10 years.

    I'm also not sure session is the right level of abstraction. I recently setup Claude Code with subscription delegation to opencode harness with z.ai coding plans and opencode go coding plan and it's been working fairly but there is no singular "session"

  • I found both models produce word salad for PR bodies by default. Same thing with commits messages.

    I had to create hooks that invoke skills when pushing new commit and open PR body text.

  • This is a good default for new users, but shouldn't have been turned on for existing users without prompting them first.

    I don't use Claude so no dog in the fight.

  • The open models I use everyday also occasionally put the co-signed by claude notices in their commits, because they have been trained on commit logs with these notices present.

    We shouldn't polute commit messages with these kind of extra's, they will only lead to more noise. Once all the models append random urls to commit messages, who's to trust these?

    If you need attribution I bet that you can find a neater way to tie commit shas to claude uuids.

  • Not really. Co-signed is part of system promt that injected by harness.
  • Instead of accepting the default “commit then push,” try “draft a commit message and let me review and revise it first.”
  • one can go as far as preventing pushes altogether, or don't give them write permissions to your repos
  • I surprised how many people don’t even read their own PR commits and diffs, like at basic level.

    So many don’t even bother to tide-up fold their commits into single logical change, consider how many commit agent doing, seems logical to have folded commit history when you open PR.

    Default commit and PR body text is word salad didn’t seems to bothered these people. Because if it did they already had hooks and skills to make it look tidy and lack of any AI attribution inserted.

    I don’t even consider myself developer more like really weak devops guy, but I was already doing all of that.

  • Presumably quietly added default-on because everyone had turned attribution off.

    Again, if you challenge it “It came from my harness instructions” and obviously telling it not to in memory is about as successful as… any other instruction in memory, about 60% of the time.

  • This is probably a controversial take, but I love this. Back in the early days of claude code I had to write a script (well, claude wrote it) to pull out the session id and append it to every commit. It's a lifesaver when you are trying to debug an old commit to pull up the chat session that actually wrote it.
  • This annoyed me to the point that I created a python script that could search opencode's database and then a skill that uses the script to find the session I was thinking of. It's nice to be able to say "I think 4 days ago I had an issue with a dropdown in Qt6, find that session." Saves a lot of time and tokens.
  • It’s reasonable.

    I think its the beginning of a larger trend where Anthropic makes its infeasible to use Claude without Claude getting credit. Not for ethical reasons, but business reasons. Fingerprinting supports this as well.

    Im speculating. And these are little things that are reasonable by itself. They are ethical. But I dont think Anthropic wants Claude to ultimately be a tool that produces some output that just gets integrated into some human’s work product. IE they dont care much about authors utilizing Claude for writing their papers or books. They do care about Claude becoming the most prolific published author by orders of magnitude. And not being “plagiarized.”

  • Just because it's not in the title and most people won't be scrolling all the way down: its only enabled for web and Remote Control sessions, per a maintainer.
  • This is incorrect. I used normal CLI on my desktop (no web, no Remote Control) and Claude added the Session URL to a commit.
  • Thing is, if you enable remote control for one session, it becomes globally enabled for all (which I personally prefer as I want to access all my sessions from my phone).
  • I really like working using Claude Code, but Anthropic has a really bad tendency to push out new "features" like this as default-on, through auto-update. That, and their models trying to do everything through bash (including editing files) is enough that I'm seriously looking in to switching harness to pi.
  • After I moved to Pi I really started to hate Claude Code.

    I still have to use Claude Code at work and after getting used to Pi I feel I'm always fighting against it.

    Maybe the way I enjoy working with LLMs just works better with Pi.

  • I don't see any issue with this at all. I noticed it the other day and thought it was convenient. The same way I let the agent tag the PRs/commits with its name. I want to know what was used, in fact I wish it would identify the model used.

    I'm not embarrassed by my LLM usage and I want to provide a full audit trail whenever possible to aid myself in the future.

    PS: Claude archives old conversations on your computer after 30days. I've started archiving mine to the side as well for potential future use.

  • > Claude archives old conversations

    Archives? Or deletes?

  • > PS: Claude archives old conversations on your computer after 30days

    Does adding this to your Claude settings.json not work anymore?

    { "cleanupPeriodDays": 99999 }

  • I'd like to know what was used but "Co-authored by Claude Code" doesn't do anything except marketing for Anthropic.

    The sessions are definitely more useful but only if I'm using a single agent from a single provider.

  • It has strong "Sent from my iPhone" vibes.

    I use many tools to develop software and if my IDE would silently start adding "This commit was created with IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate" I'd find it intrusive and obnoxious, too.

  • The major problem I see with these are linkrot. Do any of us truly believe these links will work 30 years from now?

    Post IPO, many years down the line, a leadership that is eager to cut costs will look at their storage usage and expire 7 year old non-training sessions. Quickest thing to go. I have zero faith in any successful provider getting this right.

    Git is supposed to be the durable storage medium, self containing and weathering the passage of time. Now we're littering the repos with a bunch of URLs that are only helpful in the short term.

  • I can't imagine a project so wildly successful and stable that the session URL in a commit history is relevant after 5 years, let alone 30. Git is only 21 years old. I'm not deciding team policies with a multi-decade view.

    That said, I wouldn't agree with using the session URL as the entire commit message, or even with letting the session URL make up for other missing details. But to me it's an at-worst neutral change to add it to an otherwise acceptable commit message.

  • I can't believe how many people are in favor of it. Like it's so positive in the comments I'd think it's astroturfing. The code is the result of my work however it got done, and if I don't document or explain it well enough then that's a separate issue. Did you want to see my slack messages to my mentor too? Or how about all the stack overflows I read? Maybe I should voice record all the times I swore about Gary the junior dev not documenting something? It's plenty obvious when the code is AI written it's probably just safe to assume 95% of things have been at least AI assisted. Just look at the drop in SO volume, we're not writing less code we're writing more (rip GitHub uptime).
  • What's your opinion on bibliographies?
  • A list of relevant SO posts is very much useful and something I occasionally include in a comment or commit message as a reference for some weird looking code.
  • On the potential astroturfing, check the account age. I double-check in forums with decade-old accounts before buying stuff right now. Workable line of defense against pollution.
  • > Did you want to see my slack messages to my mentor too?

    Are they relevant questions? I've often commented on lines of code in a PR that "so and so gave me the idea".

    > Or how about all the stack overflows I read?

    Would be nice to link to them either in a code comment (if they're not changed very much) or again somewhere in the PR discussion

    > Maybe I should voice record all the times I swore about Gary the junior dev not documenting something?

    If you noticed something severely lacking that would help other people out if that wasn't the case then yes I hope you would bring it up?

  • 100% agree with this. Want my browser search history too so you can see my thought process?

    This is terrible. I have no desire to read your Claude conversation. I don’t even want to read mine if I do use Claude.

    The code is the artifact. There’s no value in trying to make the noisy, verbose conversation one. It’ll likely be dead in future years anyway.