Claude Session URL appended to commit messages and PR descriptions by default

misnome

Presumably quietly added default-on because everyone had turned attribution off. Again, if you challenge it “It came from my harness instructions” and obviously telling it not to in memory is about as successful as… any other instruction in memory, about 60% of the time.

mherrmann

I cancelled my subscription over this [1]. 1: https://x.com/m_herrmann/status/2092579839676948495

_pdp_

I really hate this attribution nonsense ... On one hand I guess it is fine to automatically tag that the commit was AI-generated. On the other hand, this will happen even if you audit every line and add your own changes too, which means the attribution is misleading.

russfink

Instead of accepting the default “commit then push,” try “draft a commit message and let me review and revise it first.”

jlawrence6809

This is probably a controversial take, but I love this. Back in the early days of claude code I had to write a script (well, claude wrote it) to pull out the session id and append it to every commit. It's a lifesaver when you are trying to debug an old commit to pull up the chat session that actually wrote it.

panny

Anthropic is right here. You need to clearly define what commits are AI authored or you are conspiring to commit copyfraud. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud AI does not enjoy copyright protection. Pretending you created something written by AI is copyfraud.

DarmokTanagra

The issue comments concerned about IP theft are deeply ironic.

arijun

Just because it's not in the title and most people won't be scrolling all the way down: its only enabled for web and Remote Control sessions, per a maintainer.

greenowl

Beyond "branding", I don't mind this general direction. There absolutely should be a fool proof undefeatable mechanism that identifies or watermarks code that was completely LLM generated. If you use LLMs, own it.

joshstrange

I don't see any issue with this at all. I noticed it the other day and thought it was convenient. The same way I let the agent tag the PRs/commits with its name. I want to know what was used, in fact I wish it would identify the model used. I'm not embarrassed by my LLM usage and I want to provide a full audit trail whenever possible to aid myself in the future. PS: Claude archives old conversations on your computer after 30days. I've started archiving mine to the side as well for potential future use.

mellosouls

Also codex cloud and others.

diuagdinc2ed

Luckily I've cancelled my subscription.

klodolph

I may be missing something, but this is exactly what I want as a default. I want the session links there. I see PRs from my coworkers with session links. I still get to control whether other people can see the session, but I don’t lose it. I don’t get the “unprofessional” argument. This is attribution. Attribution is professional. If you don’t want it, you turn it off or rewrite the commit messages. If you are having Claude write the commit messages FOR YOU and you are NOT READING THEM then that’s what’s unprofessional. I am honestly kind of shocked and disappointed by how upset people are by this.

drrotmos

I really like working using Claude Code, but Anthropic has a really bad tendency to push out new "features" like this as default-on, through auto-update. That, and their models trying to do everything through bash (including editing files) is enough that I'm seriously looking in to switching harness to pi.

ketzu

I like claude code, I use it quite a bit for things, and I don't mind the attribution (I do not plan to deceive people of me using AI or not for a change) and I think a link back to the session is valueable after the fact. At least for me, the session contains a lot of discussion, back and forth, changes from me and more. (Also, if the feature is not on by default, it probably might not exist.) However, I think claude code needs better change management. It changes quite frequent and I think changes like these should be communicated better in software. (Like a card game may show card changes in game when a patch happened.) It may impact how I do things when creating the commit messages or PRs. > That is a stupid and evil feature. I can see arguments for "stupid", but "evil"?

delduca

Issue was closed with an robot-ai comment... Patetic...

benatkin

For a good chunk of my AI coding work, I make my own commits. I add Assisited-by: to them. I glance at the AI commit messages, and though I usually come up with my own messages sometimes I paraphrase. This would just make it a bit more annoying to review the AI commit messages, though I could hide it.

cameronh90

I like attribution in principle, but I'd rather it linked to an open format stored in/with the repository rather than their website.

ivan_gammel

Attribution should be opt-in, but they already support it. Via CLAUDE.md where you can specify how exactly AI contribution should be documented. Relying on whatever convention your vendor will establish isn‘t a good idea. Vendors are replaced, project conventions stay, so it‘s better to state your expectations in writing, instead of assuming that someone guesses them right and maintains conformance forever.

Insimwytim

Wouldn't think I'd be cheering Antrophic decision, but this is excellent. They probably were thinking about how that serves them as an ad, not about transparency, but still. I say they should go one step further and somehow make it harder/inconvenient to turn it off (big tech is good at this already, so...); or, maybe, hide that option behind extra feature under premium subscription or something. P.S. The comments are pure gold. They don't like they can't fake authorship and have the audacity to be indignant!