Oh, I agree, but the point the article seemed to be making was that the agent thought it was fishy that the name of the repo was "subversion", rather than "gith

Oh, I agree, but the point the article seemed to be making was that the agent thought it was fishy that the name of the repo was "subversion", rather than "github" or "bobs-useless-code-dump". It was a complete misunderstanding of what was important (storing code elsewhere), and an ascribing of malicious intent ("subversive") to it.