(replies inline) On Sunday, January 18th, 2026 at 7:43 PM, Gang Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
> - Summitters should review all lines of generated code before creating the > PR to > understand every piece of detail just like they are written by the > submitters > themselves. > - AI tools are notorious for generating overly verbose comments, unnecessary > test cases, fixing test failures using wrong approaches, etc. Make sure > these > are checked and fixed. > - Reviewers are humans, so please try to break down large PRs into smaller > ones to make reviewers' life easier to get PRs promptly reviewed. Like others I think Nic's draft is a good one, I would like to offer some thoughts as a maintainer (delta-rs) which has received increased AI-assisted pull requests over the past six months. The "PR may be closed without further review" statement I would strongly encourage moving to the very beginning of the policy. I would also encourage labels being used like "ai-assisted" to signal to other contributors who may or may not wish to engage in reviewing potential slop. We have had repeated attempts at contributions by some folks who simply do not understand their generated code and when asked for clarification, have the LLM generate more incorrect commentary. It's very Dunning-Krueger and leads to lots of frustration all around. Like most policies it's important to speak to those that are acting in good faith but don't rely on everybody following the rules, and come up with an agreed upon way to handle those that don't. Either way I think it's good to ship! :) Cheers
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
