The Co-Authored-By Copilot Controversy Misses the Real Problem

This article was originally published on LucidShark Blog.

A pull request in the VS Code repository went viral this week. GitHub was quietly inserting Co-Authored-by: GitHub Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> into commit messages whenever Copilot was active, whether or not the developer actually used any AI suggestion for that commit.

The reaction on Hacker News and Reddit was immediate and loud: 1,400 upvotes, 800 comments, developers frustrated about consent, attribution accuracy, and corporate growth-hacking dressed up as feature development. All of those complaints are legitimate.

But the debate happening in those threads is almost entirely about the wrong thing.

The attribution is cosmetic. The code behind it is not. Whether or not Copilot gets a co-author tag in your git log has no bearing on whether the code it helped produce is safe, correct, or maintainable. The real question is what quality gates apply to AI-assisted code, and the answer at most organizations is: the same ones that were already failing before AI made everything faster.

What the Co-Author Tag Actually Changes

Almost nothing, technically. The git history gets a trailer line. It shows up in git log. Nothing enforces it, nothing validates it, and nothing uses it to apply different review policies.

What it does change is psychology, and that is where the actual risk lives.

Developers reviewing PRs with an AI co-author tag may, consciously or not, apply slightly different scrutiny. The code was "reviewed by AI," the logic goes, so maybe the obvious bugs are already caught. The diff looks clean. It compiles. The tests pass. Approve.

This is the same psychological shortcut that makes phishing work: authority signals reduce critical thinking. A co-author tag from a well-known AI system is an authority signal, even if it means nothing about the code's actual quality.

How AI-Generated Code Actually Fails

The failure modes of AI-assisted code are statistically different from human-written code, and most review processes are not calibrated for them.

Human developers fail idiosyncratically: a senior developer who always skips null checks in async functions, a contractor who hardcodes credentials under deadline pressure, a junior developer who misunderstands the authentication model. Reviewers who know the team learn to watch for specific patterns in specific people.

AI-generated code fails uniformly across the entire codebase. The same patterns appear regardless of who triggered the suggestion:

• Hardcoded credentials in test fixtures. The model learned from training data where this was common, and it reproduces the pattern when writing tests under time pressure.
• Logging that captures authentication headers. Middleware generated by AI often logs the full request object, including Authorization headers, because the training data is full of debug middleware that does exactly this.
• Missing input validation on adversarial paths. Happy path validation is thorough. Edge cases where the input is null, oversized, or malformed are consistently under-handled.
• SQL built with string formatting instead of parameterized queries. Older patterns from training data resurface in generated code even when the developer knows better.
• Insecure default configurations in scaffolded services. Generated boilerplate for web servers, database connections, and API clients often leaves security options at their insecure defaults.

None of these fail modes announce themselves in a code diff. They look like normal code. They compile. They pass unit tests. They get approved in review.

Reproducing the Risk: A Concrete Example

Here is the kind of code a modern AI coding assistant produces when asked to scaffold a Node.js API endpoint with database access:

// AI-generated: POST /api/users/search
app.post('/api/users/search', async (req, res) => {
  const { query, limit } = req.body;

  // Log the request for debugging
  console.log('Search request:', JSON.stringify(req.headers));
  console.log('Query params:', query, limit);

  const results = await db.query(
    `SELECT * FROM users WHERE name LIKE '%${query}%' LIMIT ${limit}`
  );

  res.json(results);
});

This code has four problems that a SAST pass catches immediately:

• JSON.stringify(req.headers) logs the Authorization header, credential extracted to every log sink
• The SQL query uses string interpolation, creating a textbook SQL injection vector
• No authentication middleware on the route
• No upper bound validation on limit, allowing resource exhaustion

A human reviewer focused on "does this do what it's supposed to do" will often miss all four. A static analysis tool misses none of them. Here is what a scan of this file produces:

CRITICAL  sql-injection          Line 11: SQL query built with string concatenation
HIGH      credential-logging     Line 7: Authorization header captured in console.log
HIGH      missing-auth           Line 3: No authentication middleware on POST route  
MEDIUM    input-not-validated    Line 4: limit parameter used without bounds check

The co-author tag is irrelevant to all four of these findings. Whether the commit says "Co-Authored-by: GitHub Copilot" or not, the SQL injection is still there. The credential logging is still there. The missing auth is still there. Attribution changes nothing about what the code does.

Why Review Alone Does Not Scale Here

The volume argument matters. AI coding tools have multiplied the rate at which code is produced. Teams that shipped 20 PRs a week are now shipping 60. The review bandwidth did not triple.

When review throughput is the bottleneck and code volume has tripled, the math is simple: average review time per PR drops by two-thirds. The things that get skipped first are the ones that require careful line-by-line reading: credential patterns, SQL construction, logging content, authentication coverage.

These are exactly the categories where AI-generated code fails most consistently.

The practical response is not to slow down AI usage or to fight about what name goes in the commit message. It is to move the mechanical checks earlier in the pipeline, before human review, so reviewers can focus on the things that actually require human judgment.

What the Pipeline Should Look Like

Here is a pre-commit hook setup that catches the four failure modes above before any commit lands:

# .pre-commit-config.yaml
repos:
  - repo: https://github.com/Yelp/detect-secrets
    rev: v1.4.0
    hooks:
      - id: detect-secrets
        args: ['--baseline', '.secrets.baseline']

  - repo: https://github.com/PyCQA/bandit
    rev: 1.7.8
    hooks:
      - id: bandit
        args: ['-r', '.', '--severity-level', 'medium']

  - repo: local
    hooks:
      - id: lucidshark-scan
        name: LucidShark AI code quality scan
        entry: npx lucidshark scan --fail-on high
        language: node
        pass_filenames: false

For JavaScript and TypeScript specifically, add ESLint with security plugins:

// .eslintrc.js
module.exports = {
  plugins: ['security', 'no-secrets'],
  rules: {
    'security/detect-sql-injection': 'error',
    'security/detect-non-literal-fs-filename': 'warn',
    'no-secrets/no-secrets': ['error', { tolerance: 4.2 }],
  }
};

With this configuration, the AI-generated endpoint above fails the pre-commit check before it ever reaches a human reviewer:

LucidShark scan: 4 issues found
  [CRITICAL] sql-injection in routes/users.js:11
  [HIGH] credential-in-log in routes/users.js:7
  [HIGH] missing-authentication in routes/users.js:3
  [MEDIUM] unvalidated-input in routes/users.js:4

Commit blocked. Fix issues or run: lucidshark explain routes/users.js

Adding This to Your AGENTS.md

The most reliable way to apply these constraints to AI-generated code specifically is to make them part of the agent's own instructions. Add a security section to your CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md:

## Security Requirements

All code you write must pass these checks before committing:

1. No hardcoded credentials, API keys, or passwords. Use environment variables.
2. All SQL queries must use parameterized queries or an ORM. No string concatenation.
3. Do not log request headers, tokens, or objects that contain auth data.
4. Every API route that modifies data requires authentication middleware.
5. Run `npx lucidshark scan` before any commit and fix all HIGH and CRITICAL findings.

If a scan finding is a false positive, add a comment explaining why and use
// lucidshark-ignore: [rule-id] [reason]

The agent reads this file at session start and applies the constraints throughout. It will not invent these rules on its own, but it will follow written rules consistently.

Why written rules work. AI coding agents do not have persistent memory between sessions. Rules that exist only in a previous conversation, a team Slack channel, or a developer's head are invisible to the agent starting a new session. Rules written in a file the agent reads at startup are always present. The AGENTS.md is not documentation, it is a security control.

The Attribution Story, Reframed

The VS Code PR controversy is useful as a conversation starter. It has put AI code attribution in front of 800 developers who are now actively thinking about what it means. That is a good time to redirect the conversation toward what actually matters.

Attribution in a commit message is auditable but inert. It tells you something was AI-assisted. It does not tell you whether the AI assistance produced code with a SQL injection, a hardcoded credential, or a missing authentication check. For that, you need analysis that runs on the code itself, not the commit metadata.

The question to ask your team is not "should we keep the co-author tag?" It is: "what automated analysis runs on every AI-generated commit before it reaches review, and what does it catch?"

If the answer is nothing, the co-author tag is the least of your problems.

LucidShark runs exactly this analysis, locally, with no code sent to external servers. It integrates with Claude Code as an MCP tool, so the scan runs inside your AI coding session before anything gets committed. Install it in under two minutes and see what your AI-generated code is actually producing:
npx lucidshark init
lucidshark.com