I agree with option 3. On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 10:03 AM Jason Fehr <[email protected]> wrote:
> We have added a requirement to include a commit message trailer > "Assisted-by: <model> (<tool>)" when using generative tooling (see > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IMPALA/Contributing+to+Impala#:~:text=If%20using%20generative%20tooling > ). > Next, we need to consider the situation where multiple generative tools are > used on the same commit. For example, multiple models may be used to > approach different problems on a single commit or may be used to get > different perspectives on the same problem. Also, multiple tools could be > used for the same reason. > > How should we document that multiple models/tools were used? Here are the > options I can see: > 1. Add an "Assisted-by" trailer only for the primary model/agent that was > used. > Pros: Simple > Cons: Loses information/context about the commit, may not always have a > primary model/tool that was used. > 2. Use a single "Assisted-by" trailer listing all models/agents. For > example: "Assisted-by: GPT-5.3-Codex, Sonnet 4.6 (Copilot, Claude Code)". > Pros: Includes all generative tooling information in a single line. > Cons: Loses some information/context about the commit since it's not > clear which model was used with which agent. > 3. Use a single "Assisted-by" trailer per agent. Each agent will have its > own "Assisted-by" trailer in the commit message with multiple models > potentially listed. > For example: > Assisted-by: GPT-5.3-Codex, Sonnet 4.6 (Copilot) > Assisted-by: Sonnet 4.6 (Claude Code) > Pros: Does not hide information. > Cons: Potentially more difficult to parse. > 4. Use a single "Assisted-by" trailer per model/agent. > For example: > Assisted-by: GPT-5.3-Codex (Copilot) > Assisted-by: Sonnet 4.6 (Copilot) > Assisted-by: Sonnet 4.6 (Claude Code) > Pros: Does not hide information. > Cons: Most verbose. > > My vote is for option 3. It is the most concise without losing > information. > > Thanks, > Jason >
