Re: [PATCH] coding-assistants: simplify attribution

[Jori Koolstra]

> Op 04-08-2026 10:10 CEST schreef Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> 
>  
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 04:48:03PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 02:34:40PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > > -  Assisted-by: Claude:claude-3-opus coccinelle sparse
> > > +  Assisted-by: LLM coccinelle sparse
> >
> > I've been playing with this a bit, and it's pretty easy to teach the agent to
> > add a few tag-like notes as to how exactly it was used, e.g.:
> >
> >     https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/b4/b4.git/commit/?id=018b87444d32eb2ffee7cb25f0785e54aa35f7bf
> >
> > This has:
> >
> > | Assisted-by: LLM [design, codegen, tests]
> >
> > It tells us a bit more about *how* the LLM was used, without introducing the
> > advertisement or pinning exact models.
> >
> > This format should allow for multiple tool usage:
> >
> > | Assisted-by: LLM [triage, tests], coccinelle
> >
> > I don't suggest this is included in this version, but it *is* fairly
> > straightforward to add to AGENTS.md and tells reviewers just how exactly the
> > LLM was used.
> 
> I think perhaps this should be a follow-up (this stuff is so fraught that I am
> super-glad to see Christian's suggestion fly through and want to take gains
> iteratively on this :), but completely agree.
> 
> David suggested something like:
> 
> Assisted-by: LLM # < what it actually did in the patch >
> 

We should have some format to explain what the assistant was used for,
but not sure if a single line after the tag is going to cut it. I agree
it is the most simple, but I have personally used an LLM for a patch where
the explanation of what exactly it was put to do would have been very
hard to fit in a format like this without significant loss of information.

So, maybe below the ---? I guess that most maintainers don't want this kind
of explanation to be part of the commit message (or maybe they do?)

Best,
Jori.