i wonder how they will detect it though. is there some good tool to tell them if code files someone submit were outputs or altered by LLMs?
And even if you tell it to make it leaner, it'll maybe trim a little, but it'll still be a wall of text. Claude really likes to write its opuses and fables in comments.
And commit messages suffer from the same verbose prose.
And all of that happens even if you explicitly instruct in CLAUDE.md to keep things lean/concise. It's a disease.
"quite easy to spot" this style in what sense? To a human? To an LLM? To a deterministic code scanner you wrote by hand yourself, per Codeberg policy?
I find that it helps Claude when it's updating that code again (it's a kind of out-of-session memory). A few times it's come across a past decision I gave it, and notified or asked me to clarify where an update would be conflicting. I'm not reading the code but I sure know when those "sins" help to prevent a regression or otherwise undesired behavioral change.
[1] https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/how-tos/commit-chan...
That way if a consumer does not want to use LLM generated/assisted software, it's easy for them to do that without having to search around in the codebase for "AI Tells".
Removing those would feel like I was mis-representing my coding abilities (LLMs are better at most coding than I am) :)
It is probably a good example of why do many people think that the policy is ultimately counter productive even to Codeberg itself.