On Tue, Aug 04, 2026 at 01:09:23PM +0200, Jori Koolstra wrote: > > > Op 04-08-2026 10:10 CEST schreef Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <[email protected]>: > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 04:48:03PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 02:34:40PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > > > - Assisted-by: Claude:claude-3-opus coccinelle sparse > > > > + Assisted-by: LLM coccinelle sparse > > > > > > I've been playing with this a bit, and it's pretty easy to teach the > > > agent to > > > add a few tag-like notes as to how exactly it was used, e.g.: > > > > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/b4/b4.git/commit/?id=018b87444d32eb2ffee7cb25f0785e54aa35f7bf > > > > > > This has: > > > > > > | Assisted-by: LLM [design, codegen, tests] > > > > > > It tells us a bit more about *how* the LLM was used, without introducing > > > the > > > advertisement or pinning exact models. > > > > > > This format should allow for multiple tool usage: > > > > > > | Assisted-by: LLM [triage, tests], coccinelle > > > > > > I don't suggest this is included in this version, but it *is* fairly > > > straightforward to add to AGENTS.md and tells reviewers just how exactly > > > the > > > LLM was used. > > > > I think perhaps this should be a follow-up (this stuff is so fraught that I > > am > > super-glad to see Christian's suggestion fly through and want to take gains > > iteratively on this :), but completely agree. > > > > David suggested something like: > > > > Assisted-by: LLM # < what it actually did in the patch > > > > > We should have some format to explain what the assistant was used for, > but not sure if a single line after the tag is going to cut it. I agree > it is the most simple, but I have personally used an LLM for a patch where > the explanation of what exactly it was put to do would have been very > hard to fit in a format like this without significant loss of information. > > So, maybe below the ---? I guess that most maintainers don't want this kind > of explanation to be part of the commit message (or maybe they do?)
I think best to keep discussion of this to the follow up patch to avoid the usual combinatorial thread explosion on this topic :) > > Best, > Jori. -- Cheers, Lorenzo
