[guessmyname]

Most people leave the “Co-authored-by: <name>” lines in their Git commits [1]. I’m not sure why exactly, but I suppose it's either laziness or a lack of care. Regardless, if I were Codeberg, that would be the first thing I’d detect, and then I might use a Random Forest Classifier to identify the rest.

[1] https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/how-tos/commit-chan...

[raesene9]

As other have mentioned, and I'm the same. Leaving "Co-Authored by:" feels like open disclosure of how the project was created.

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) :)

[applfanboysbgon]

AGENTS.MD and CLAUDE.MD also provide easy detection avenues. Trivial measures will probably catch 70-80% or more. You don't need a 100% enforcement rate for a rule to exist, indeed there are basically no rules anywhere in the world that achieve that.

[Mashimo]

But that just means they probably used AI to help code, not that it is vibe coded, no?

[graemep]

It does not prove anything. Some could not commit those files to avoid detection, and those files exist in projects in which only some code is AI generated. I have them in projects where, for example, LLMs were used to generate tests and for a few fixes/additions in the rest of the code.

[mattashii]

Whilst they may provide a strong signal, I wouldn't call it a guarantee. If I wanted to avoid vibe-coded contributions I might add such files, but with instructions for the agents that they're not allowed to read or touch any of the files in the repository.

[Trung0246]

At that point just use whitelist-based approach. I already used gitignore like that. It also easier to avoid committing temp file and secret through whitelist because those file are never in gitignore in the first place.

[ramon156]

Then the linux repo is also banned. I don't think that's a good way to detect "vibe coding"

[FabCH]

The Linux repo clearly would be considered vibe-coded by Codeberg policy and it being banned is the policy working as intended.

It is probably a good example of why do many people think that the policy is ultimately counter productive even to Codeberg itself.

[K0nserv]

I feel it's a faux pas to pass off work entirely or partially done with AI as your own. I make sure I leave those lines in specifically for that reason.

[inigyou]

Me too, whenever I check in something compiled by a compiler. I always make sure to credit GCC!

[K0nserv]

I don't usually check in compiled artifacts myself.

[skeledrew]

I expressly leave them there for transparency and potential future analysis. I'm even working on a coauthor attribution format for work done with Pi agent, as well as when there are multiple models collaborating. If Codeberg wants to gatekeep on AI-generated code, I'll leave them to their tiny niche.

[prennert]

honesty?