[throw172643]

I had relative number of commits mentioned as part of my negative performance evaluation. I was working on a project involving a long information gathering phase and a long design process for the architecture, but that wasn't considered an excuse. It 100% depends on your manager, though. I think managers might feel forced to make a comparisons and put an otherwise acceptable engineer on the bottom of the stack. Lines of code and commit count is a pretty low-thought way of doing that.

[retrocryptid]

oh man. that is the kiss of death at amazon. ALWAYS BE CODING. ALWAYS BE COMMITTING. My director told me they looked at commit cadence, KLoC and (ugh) story points retired per sprint because it was something they could measure. You can measure code that compiles vs. code that doesn't compile. Architecture docs and designs can't be automagically evaluated; there's a lot of subjective judgement as to whether or not they're useful.

It seems unlikely this is universal, but at least in my management chain, focus on code was definitely a thing.