Add AI-disclosure and quality requirements to the contribution guidelines#2143
Add AI-disclosure and quality requirements to the contribution guidelines#2143
Conversation
…ines. Co-authored-by: GPT 5.5 <codex@openai.com>
Split the quality-expectations section into two paragraphs (the warning about low-quality contributions being declined was visually merged with the preceding paragraph). Replace "and the pull request closed without warning" with a note that maintainers may not always be able to provide detailed feedback, which conveys the same practical reality. Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've pushed a commit (92ff6df). How do you feel about this wording? I worry this may soften the point you are making too much, which I would not want to happen. But this also explains the reasoning why feedback may be absent -- and I am hoping it may also avoid discouraging people from contributing, while at the same time hopefully making the situation at least as clear, and setting the exact same expectations, as in the original wording.
EliahKagan
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
This PR updates the project’s contribution guidelines to set explicit quality expectations for contributions and to require disclosure/identification for AI-assisted work when it meaningfully affects a PR, commits, or GitHub interactions.
Changes:
- Add a “Quality expectations” section defining baseline standards (readability, maintainability, tests where practical, documentation, consistency).
- Add an “AI-assisted contributions” section describing disclosure requirements and agent identification expectations.
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
| metadata. Prefer making the agent identity part of the commit, for example by using | ||
| an AI author such as `$agent $version <ai-agent@example.invalid>` or a co-author via | ||
| a `Co-authored-by: <agent-identity>` trailer. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's very unclear to me why having the agent listed as the author and the human listed as a coauthor would be less safe than any other approach, with respect to the specific concerns raised here.
With that said, the core of Copilot's point here is actually a good point: there are some advantages to the use of an Assisted-by or related trailer. But the guidelines as written here actually permit most such approaches already, since they present the other approaches as examples rather than a closed menu of options. I think the option of using Assisted-by or related trailers should likely be added explicitly in the future, but that this can be deferred. I'm going to want to look into how major projects that have recently begun to ask contributors to use such trailers, especially the Linux kernel, recommend that it be used.
Tasks