Git

That is the second time this morning. Once again, without a word, Claude Code co-signed my commit.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

When I point it out, it apologises flatly and does it again.

Yet I had written, in capitals, in my global CLAUDE.md:

NEVER append a Co-Authored by Claude in commit description

That is the file Claude Code loads in every session.

I say publicly that I use AI, but I answer for my code. With that line added, a client may wonder who is accountable for the code, a maintainer what “co-author” implies, when neither question should arise at all. Co-signing is not assisting, it is claiming authorship.

Introduction

In computing, the aphorism “Less is More” comes up often. With Jujutsu (jj), it takes a very concrete form: a simpler mental model can reduce the daily friction of version control.

In this article¹, I will not try to “prove” that jj is superior to git. I will show, on a concrete case, why some common operations: interrupting work in progress, reorganizing changes, fixing a non-atomic commit or resolving a conflict, become more natural with jj.