How much time will I actually save with Fazm?

Most users report saving 45-90 minutes per day on repetitive tasks. The biggest time savings come from email management (drafting replies, sorting, archiving), form filling (expense reports, CRM updates, applications), research (comparing products, gathering data from multiple sites), and social media (cross-posting, scheduling, replying). For example, booking a flight that normally takes 10 minutes of clicking through airline sites takes a single voice command with Fazm. Filing an expense report that requires opening a PDF, extracting numbers, and entering them into a spreadsheet becomes one spoken sentence. The more repetitive and multi-step your daily work is, the more time you get back.

What exactly can Fazm control?

Fazm controls everything you can do manually on your Mac. That includes mouse movements and clicks, keyboard typing, browser navigation and form filling, app switching, file management in Finder, and system-level actions. It uses direct browser DOM control for web interactions - meaning it reads and manipulates the actual page structure rather than taking screenshots and guessing where to click. For native macOS apps, Fazm uses accessibility APIs to interact with buttons, menus, text fields, and other UI elements. This works across any application: Chrome, Safari, VS Code, Slack, Figma, Terminal, Mail, Calendar, and more.

How is Fazm different from ChatGPT or Claude?

Chatbots like ChatGPT and Claude give you answers in a conversation window. Fazm takes action directly on your computer. When you say 'reply to Sarah's email,' Fazm opens your email app, finds Sarah's message, writes a contextual reply, and sends it. A chatbot would tell you what to write, but you still have to do all the clicking and typing yourself. Fazm moves your mouse, types on your keyboard, clicks buttons, and navigates between apps. It is a computer agent, not a chat assistant.

How does the memory layer work?

Fazm builds a personal knowledge graph by extracting information from your files, browsing history, conversations, and daily activity. Over time, it learns your contacts (names, emails, relationships), accounts and credentials, preferences (formatting, tone, scheduling habits), and frequently used workflows. In your first week, you might say 'Reply to Sarah's email, she's my cofounder, her email is sarah@acme.com.' By week four, you just say 'Reply to Sarah' because Fazm already knows who she is. By week eight, Fazm can draft the reply before you even ask. All of this data stays locally on your Mac - your knowledge graph never leaves your machine or gets sent to any cloud service.

Is Fazm safe? Can it mess up my computer?

Safety is built into every layer of Fazm. You watch every action in real-time on your screen - Fazm moves your mouse and types visibly, so there is nothing hidden. You can stop any action at any point by pressing a keyboard shortcut. Fazm also shows you what it plans to do before executing destructive actions like deleting files or sending emails, giving you a chance to confirm or cancel. Because Fazm is open source, the code is fully auditable on GitHub. There is no hidden behavior, no background processes making changes you cannot see, and no actions that bypass your screen.

What platforms does Fazm support?

Fazm currently supports macOS, running natively on both Apple Silicon (M1, M2, M3, M4) and Intel Macs. It is built with Swift and uses macOS-specific frameworks like ScreenCaptureKit for screen analysis and Accessibility APIs for app control, which is why macOS is the primary platform. Windows and Linux support are on the roadmap but do not have release dates yet. You can also control your Mac remotely from your phone using Fazm Remote, which gives you voice access to your desktop while you are away from your computer.

How does Fazm voice input work?

One keyboard shortcut activates push-to-talk. Hold the key, speak naturally about what you need done, and release. Fazm transcribes your speech locally using on-device models, so there is no network latency for the voice recognition step. You do not need wake words like 'Hey Siri' or 'OK Google' - just press and talk. You can also type commands into the floating toolbar if you prefer text input. Fazm understands natural language, so you do not need to memorize specific commands. Say 'book me a flight to Tokyo next Thursday' or 'find the cheapest AirPods on Amazon' and Fazm figures out the steps.

Is my data sent to the cloud?

Fazm processes screen analysis and memory entirely on your machine. The personal knowledge graph, file indexing, and screen capture all run locally. The only data that leaves your Mac is the intent - a text description of what you want to accomplish, which is sent to the AI model (Claude or GPT) for action planning. Your actual screen content, file contents, browsing history, and personal knowledge graph never leave your computer. Fazm is also open source, so you can verify exactly what data is transmitted by reading the code on GitHub. For users who need complete air-gapped operation, local model support is planned.

Back to Blog

Should AI Agents Get Co-Author Credits on Git Commits?

Fazm Team·March 17, 2026·2 min read

ai-developmentgittransparencyco-authorclaude-codeethics

Should AI Agents Get Co-Author Credits on Git Commits?

He put Co-Authored-By: Claude in his CLAUDE.md so every commit auto-credits the AI. Checked the git log yesterday - Claude has more co-author credits than his actual teammates.

The Transparency Argument

There's a strong case for crediting AI in commits. When a significant portion of the code was generated by an AI agent, the commit history should reflect that. It matters for:

Code review - reviewers should know which code was human-written vs AI-generated, because the failure modes are different
Debugging - AI-generated code often has subtle issues that follow predictable patterns
Audit trails - in regulated industries, knowing that code was AI-assisted is a compliance requirement
Honesty - if the AI did the work, pretending a human wrote it is misleading

The Counter-Argument

Some developers push back on AI co-author credits because:

It clutters the git log with a tag that's on every single commit
The human still reviewed, tested, and approved the code
It creates an awkward dynamic where the AI has more "contributions" than junior developers
Some managers use commit counts as productivity metrics, and this distorts the data

What Actually Works

The practical middle ground most teams have landed on:

Always credit in the commit message - a Co-Authored-By trailer is low-noise and grep-able
Don't count AI credits in contribution metrics - filter them out of dashboards
Use it as a review signal - commits with AI co-author get extra scrutiny on edge cases
Be consistent - if you credit AI sometimes, credit it always

The verification paradox still applies. You need to review AI code just as carefully as human code, maybe more so. The co-author tag is a reminder to do that.

In the end, transparency wins. Better to know which code had AI involvement than to pretend everything was hand-crafted.

Fazm is an open source macOS AI agent. Open source on GitHub.

Should AI Agents Get Co-Author Credits on Git Commits?

Should AI Agents Get Co-Author Credits on Git Commits?

The Transparency Argument

The Counter-Argument

What Actually Works

More on This Topic

Related Posts

Has AI Ruined Software Development? No - It Shifted the Work to Specs

How AI Changes the Developer Career Path - Writing Specs Instead of Code

100M Tokens Tracked: 99.4% Were Input and Parallel Agents Make It Worse