This post assumed that the author of the "runs" commit was not acting maliciously. Has that been established? It's not mentioned in this article.

When looking through all the other commits the user has made: they all lack a good commit message.

This is systematic for that user. Either the user needs to improve or let go.

The organization needs to learn that good commit messages are a requirement for anything to do with crypto and payment systems.

Per the article, not my opinion.

It has been established that "I didn't do it on purpose" is not enough in some cases. You have to _not do it_ _on purpose_. That "fake it till you make it", in this case, understanding what your code does, is perfectly fine in some contexts, not in others, like this one.

Hanlon’s razor.

Also: writing this stuff in C just begs for bugs.

LLM agents are cheap and good enough that you can write in eg Lean or whatever. Or at least write it in Rust.