请问HN：在开发软件时，您是如何归因于人工智能的使用的？
我已经开始在完全由人工智能生成的提交信息前加上“prompt:”的前缀（这些内容我已经阅读并批准过），然后在后续的提交中进行我自己的手动修改和迭代。
我觉得这是一个合理的披露尝试，但似乎还有所欠缺。我通常会包含一个摘要，而不是整个提示（我该如何包含工具使用呢？）我也没有说明使用了哪些模型或“代理”（例如，光标侧边栏聊天与Claude代码等）。不过，我不确定这是否重要？
你在自己的工作流程中是如何管理这个问题的？
查看原文
I have started a convention of prefixing a commit message with "prompt:" for commits that are entirely AI generated (which I have read through and approved) and then I make my own manual changes and iterations in subsequent commits.<p>I feel like this is a reasonable attempt at disclosure, but it also seems like it's lacking. I usually include a summary, not the entire prompt (how would I included tool use?) I don't say which models or "agent" was used (cursor sidebar chat vs calude code, etc). Not sure if this matters though?<p>How have you been managing this in your own workflows?