[tdullien]

That's a clever and intriguing idea. I have to think through the security implications a bit though - I don't actually know much about how git operates with regards to hooks etc.

I'd imagine you lose the ability to have the coding agent do the commits for you? E.g. if you just mount the code directory, then an agent running on the remote side can't commit anything, right?

So you'd have to mount the .git directory from the remote side to then push?

[blourvim]

git will check the .git folder, find a hook, and run it where it is applicable. If you are cloning a remote repository may inherit you with malicious hooks. These hooks run before you git operations, for example it is useful if you want lint the code a certain way before pushing, it does it automatically.

You can disable this behavior globally. Yes, the agent should have no git access this way, however you could always do a local sub repository if you want to. You track your changes twice, but should work