Hacker News Reader

Makes sense, but since companies are using coding agents more. Like if you see some repos the top contributor is claude. Since PRs are being made by agents, if you do a git blame claude is the one responsible for the change. In that case who's responsible? Reviewer?

View on HN

It's not allowed where I work; the commits are signed by a human.

Same goes for my workplace. Human-signed commits only. Companies which are not paying attention will learn eventually. Writing code with AI requires a lot of effort from developers. Specs must be crystal clear, testing philosophy must be good, edge-cases rooted out, regression tests written in advance and proven. In the end, a human being is responsible for the final output; be it the dev who controlled the agent, or the CEO who kicked all devs from the team and then told Claude to create an application.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com