More code can make shipping harder
The signal is the cost of handling more code. It is not a reason to throw out Git.
Anthropic says it went from about 2,500 daily code merges in May to over 30,000 in September. Source control became the bottleneck. Seven engineers built Scion and related tools, then migrated the monorepo in five months.
The company reports a 25% CPU capacity gain in CI. These are its own results.
Source: anthropic.com/engineering/redesigning-source-control
My read: the signal is the cost of handling more code. It is not a reason to throw out Git.
Anthropic says Scion does not suit general use. Its scale and the amount of agent-generated code are unusual.
Your pick: keep Git. Measure review wait time, test time, failed builds, and rollbacks before you add more coding agents. Fix the slowest step first.
12 months: more teams will hit review and CI limits as agents write more code.
24 months: developer tools will compete on safe throughput, not just how much code they can produce.
36 months: tests and permissions will matter more than the volume of code agents can write.
Why I may be wrong: most teams may never reach this scale. More merges also do not prove better software. Does your team need more code, or faster checks?