I say no. The agent adds it. The repository refuses it.
Working manuscript · v0.1
01 / WHAT HAPPENED
I tell the coding agent not to add generated attribution. The session adds it anyway. By the time the contribution reaches a pull request, the repository has to restate the boundary as executable policy. The check does not erase an immutable commit in place; it refuses the contribution until its metadata is rewritten.
02 / THE DISAGREEMENT
The strange part is not the trailer. It is which instruction won. A user instruction, a product convention, a model action and a repository policy all claim some authority over one line of metadata. The repository resolves the disagreement at the last possible boundary.
03 / THE CORRECTION
LARQL’s required pull-request check reads every commit message, then the pull-request title and body, through the GitHub API. It rejects Claude co-author trailers, session metadata, generated-with credit lines and Claude Code session URLs. Human co-authors are not rejected.
PROPOSED
Assistance and authorship are different types.
A commit can record the accountable author while provenance separately records the tools used. Collapsing both into co-authorship makes the metadata answer a question it was not designed to answer.
Where should an agent’s assistance be recorded without confusing it for authorship?
The CI guard enforces one repository’s answer. The wider vocabulary for accountable parties, tools and generated contributions is still primitive.
Thematic notebook / Working draft
Closing thought
The repository makes the authorship policy enforceable at the pull-request boundary. The check rejects disallowed metadata until it is rewritten; it cannot edit an immutable commit itself.