I also use this as a simple heuristic:

https://github.com/nkuntz1934/matrix-workers/commits/main/

There exist only two commits. I've never seen a "real" project that looks like this.

victorbjorklund 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

To be honest sometimes on my hobby project I don’t commit anything in the beginning (I know not great strategy) and then just dump everything in one large commit.

	▲	masklinn 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I’ve also been guilty of plugging at something, and squashing it all before publishing for the first time because I look at the log and I go “no way I can release this, or untangle it into any sort of usefulness”.

▲

InsideOutSanta 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think that's a reasonable heuristic, but I have projects where I primarily commit to an internal Gitea instance, and then sometimes commit to a public GitHub repo. I don't want people to see me stumbling around in my own code until I think it's somewhat clean.

	▲	ectospheno 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I have a similar process. Internal repo where work gets done. External repo that only gets each release.

▲

biohazard2 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The repository is less than one week old though; having only the initial commit wouldn't shock me right away.

▲

cortesoft 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That is totally fine... as long as you don't call it 'production grade'. I wouldn't call anything production grade that hasn't actually spent time (more than a week!) in actual production.

	▲	4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

jstanley 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But if the initial commit contains the finished project then that suggests that either it was developed without version control, or that the history has deliberately been hidden.

	▲	btown 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It was/is quite common for corporate projects that become open-source to be born as part of an internal repository/monorepo, and when the decision is made to make them open-source, the initial open source commit is just a dump of the files in a snapshotted public-ready state, rather than tracking the internal-repo history (which, even with tooling to rebase partial history, would be immensely harder to audit that internal information wasn't improperly released). So I wouldn't use the single-commit as a signal indicating AI-generated code. In this case, there are plenty of other signals that this was AI-generated code :)

▲

Hamuko 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I might just make dummy commits ("asdadasdassadas") in the prototyping phase and then just squash everything to an "Initial commit" afterwards.