docs: add a post on how eleven projects check AI attribution in CI

docs/blog/posts/2026-11-10-ai-attribution-checks-in-ci.md

@@ -0,0 +1,209 @@
+---
+date:
+  created: 2026-11-10
+readtime: 6
+slug: ai-attribution-checks-in-ci
+description: >-
+  I read the CI checks that eleven projects run on AI-assisted commits. The
+  same trailer is required by one project and blocks the merge in another.
+  Here is what each one checks, and what none of them can.
+categories:
+  - UPDATES
+tags:
+  - commit-check
+  - ai
+  - governance
+authors:
+  - shenxianpeng
+---
+
+# How eleven projects check AI attribution in CI
+
+GitHub's [Octoverse report][octoverse] has this line:
+
+> By September 2026, more than 40% of pull requests on GitHub started with an
+> agent's first draft, up from 17% in March.
+
+Many of those agents sign their work. Claude Code, for one, adds a
+`Co-Authored-By:` line to its commits unless you turn that off.
+
+Projects have answered with AI policies. A policy file doesn't stop a line
+that a tool adds by default, so some projects now check the rule in CI. I read
+eleven of those checks. Every project name below links to the file at the
+commit I read.
+
+<!-- more -->
+
+## The same two lines, opposite results
+
+Take two lines an agent might leave on a commit, and ask what each project's
+check does with them:
+
+| Project | `Co-Authored-By: Claude …` | `Assisted-by: Claude Code` |
+|---|---|---|
+| [Incus][incus] | fails | fails |
+| [Apache XTable][xtable] | fails | not checked |
+| [JUnit][junit] | fails | fails |
+| [Neovim][neovim] | fails | fails: only a bare `AI-assisted` is allowed |
+| [FreeBSD atf][atf] | fails | passes: it is the trailer they ask for |
+| [Nextcloud][nextcloud] | labels the pull request | labels the pull request |
+| [Vim][vim] | not checked | labels the pull request |
+| [Ant Design Vue][antdv] | passes: it is required | fails: no AI co-author |
+
+Three things stand out.
+
+**The same line is required in one project and blocks the merge in another.**
+Ant Design Vue fails a commit that has no AI co-author: "Every commit must
+include an AI co-author trailer." Incus and JUnit fail a commit that has one,
+and XTable fails a commit that credits Claude.
+
+**Projects that want disclosure don't agree on its form.** FreeBSD atf and
+Nextcloud ask for an `Assisted-by:` trailer, and Nextcloud's example names
+both the tool and the model. Neovim wants the tool left out. Its check prints
+`Only a generic "AI-assisted" token is allowed`, and a trailer that names the
+tool fails.
+
+**Not every check blocks.** Vim and Nextcloud add an "AI assisted" label and
+leave the decision to reviewers. Nextcloud fails only when an agent signs
+off, because the DCO "must only be attested by a human contributor".
+
+So there is no habit a contributor, or an agent, can learn once and use
+everywhere. The rule has to come from the repository they are contributing to.
+
+## Two projects check the pull request instead
+
+[LangChain's docs repository][langchain] reads the pull request description,
+because a squash merge makes it the commit message on main. It fails on the
+"Generated with Claude Code" badge and on a Claude co-author line, and asks
+for "one plain sentence instead, for example: Prepared with Claude Code."
+
+[Solana web3.js][solana] makes the author tick exactly one of two boxes in
+the description: "No AI tooling was used" or "AI tooling was used". The second
+box also needs a filled-in "Tool and extent:" line. For outside contributors
+the check also looks for a tool's signature left in the title, the
+description, the commits or the branch name, and says what it takes that to
+mean: "the change was opened without its author reading it."
+
+## Eight shell scripts and three config files
+
+Eight of the eleven checks are shell scripts the project wrote itself. Most
+carry their own list of tools: XTable's has one name, Incus's nine,
+Nextcloud's fourteen. A list like that is out of date when the next agent
+ships. And a pattern loose enough to find `claude` on an author line also
+stops a contributor whose name is Claude.
+
+The other three use [Commit Check](https://github.com/commit-check/commit-check),
+which I maintain. There the policy is one setting, and the list of tools comes
+with the tool.
+
+[JUnit][junit] forbids AI marks. Its contributing guide says "Git commits must
+be authored by you and not attribute an AI tool as co-author", and the
+workflow that checks it has four settings:
+
+```yaml
+- uses: commit-check/commit-check-action@08357050a644b85d321164f23054f176c13bb018 # v2.20.2
+  env:
+    CCHK_AI_ATTRIBUTION: forbid
+    CCHK_CONVENTIONAL_COMMITS: false
+    # Disable default length rules
+    CCHK_SUBJECT_MIN_LENGTH: 0
+    CCHK_SUBJECT_MAX_LENGTH: 10000
+  with:
+    message: true
+    branch: false
+```
+
+[FreeBSD atf][atf] asks for disclosure. The same file also requires a
+sign-off and refuses GitHub's noreply author addresses. This is its AI part:
+
+```toml
+[commit]
+ai_attribution = "disclose"
+ai_disclosure_trailers = ["Assisted-by"]
+```
+
+[Evolution Gaming][evolution] is a company, and its policy opens with "AI
+tools may assist with development, but a human author takes responsibility
+for every commit." It publishes one workflow for its repositories to copy
+and mark as required. The workflow sets `CCHK_AI_ATTRIBUTION: "forbid"` and
+keeps a grep of its own next to it, for trailers the version it pins doesn't
+catch.
+
+One commit message gets opposite answers from two of them. In a directory
+with FreeBSD atf's `commit-check.toml`:
+
+```console
+$ cat message.txt
+Fix flaky retry test
+
+Wait for the worker to drain before asserting.
+
+Assisted-by: Claude Code
+Signed-off-by: Jane Doe <jane@example.org>
+$ commit-check --message message.txt
+$ echo $?
+0
+```
+
+With JUnit's settings, in a directory with no config file:
+
+```console
+$ export CCHK_AI_ATTRIBUTION=forbid CCHK_CONVENTIONAL_COMMITS=false
+$ export CCHK_SUBJECT_MIN_LENGTH=0 CCHK_SUBJECT_MAX_LENGTH=10000
+$ commit-check --message message.txt
+✖ Commit rejected by Commit Check · 1 check failed
+
+✖ CC013 ai-attribution failed: Claude Code
+  AI attribution is forbidden in this project — detected: Claude Code
+  Suggest: This project does not accept AI attribution in commit messages. Remove the AI trailer lines and re-commit.
+  Docs:    https://commit-check.com/rules/#cc013
+```
+
+## What none of them can check
+
+All eleven read what a commit or a pull request says. None can tell who, or
+what, wrote the diff. Delete the trailer and the commit looks like any other.
+
+GitHub's 40% has the same limit. Octoverse defines an agent-started pull
+request as one "whose first draft came from a coding agent that we can
+detect", and says of its agent signals: "It is a floor, since not all agent
+use may be detected."
+
+So these checks don't catch someone who hides AI use. They catch the default:
+the line a tool added and the contributor never looked at. They also tell the
+contributor what this project wants while the pull request is still open,
+which a policy file can't do if nobody opened it.
+
+## If you are writing this rule
+
+- **Decide what a commit should say, not which tools are allowed.** Ten of the
+  eleven take one of three positions: no AI marks (JUnit, Incus), disclose it
+  in the form the project names (FreeBSD atf, Neovim), or label it and let
+  reviewers decide (Vim). Ant Design Vue takes a fourth: always credit the
+  tool.
+- **Put the fix in the failure message.** Nextcloud's prints the trailer to
+  use in place of the one it rejected.
+- **If you squash on merge, check the description too**, as LangChain does.
+
+With Commit Check the first two positions are `ai_attribution = "forbid"` and
+`ai_attribution = "disclose"`. The
+[policies guide](../../guides/policies.md#recipes-from-real-projects) has the
+settings for more policies, Nextcloud's among them, and
+[the same check for a pull request description](../../guides/policies.md#checking-a-pull-request-description).
+The [GitHub App](https://github.com/apps/commit-check) runs the same rules
+without a workflow.
+
+If your project checks this in a way I didn't cover, I would like to read it.
+
+[octoverse]: https://github.blog/news-insights/octoverse/octoverse-commits-pushes-reach-new-highs-in-2026-as-developers-build-with-agents/
+[incus]: https://github.com/lxc/incus/blob/63377d9bacba35715edf1bcfb4fd155485a6a6fb/.github/workflows/commits.yml
+[xtable]: https://github.com/apache/incubator-xtable/blob/0e97d0ae94ac81f9b3e2cc3f86cc2d479e67173c/.github/workflows/commit_coauthor_validation.yml
+[junit]: https://github.com/junit-team/junit-framework/blob/13e10545e89a8e217c9d9d2807c449f296205033/.github/workflows/_forbid-ai-attribution.yml
+[neovim]: https://github.com/neovim/neovim/blob/7e394dbb896eaf86cb1046666dd423d512cda55f/.github/workflows/labeler_pr.yml
+[atf]: https://github.com/freebsd/atf/blob/1f183309cb6f7f6352bed578c0d1554812afdcfa/commit-check.toml
+[nextcloud]: https://github.com/nextcloud/android/blob/23951692e38cad0518a000b8542871cfd739e060/.github/workflows/ai-policy.yml
+[vim]: https://github.com/vim/vim/blob/437b1deed5d7aece25ae4a5c1c11c550aa1fe206/.github/workflows/label.yml
+[antdv]: https://github.com/vueComponent/ant-design-vue/blob/7483836f0adac76516e527df893c3d84a7cd4005/.github/workflows/ai-co-author.yml
+[langchain]: https://github.com/langchain-ai/docs/blob/c219b081f6d95d741b99fb6dd69d5a60325e5706/.github/workflows/check-pr-ai-attribution.yml
+[solana]: https://github.com/solana-foundation/solana-web3.js/blob/a325305c5680184a1dce27ddb592188810175883/.github/workflows/pr-hygiene.yml
+[evolution]: https://github.com/evolution-gaming/.github/blob/9486d3e8e67c3fdcf5cb4301ca3a6cfe93072afb/.github/workflows/human-commit-ownership.yml