I'd like to come back to this and to recommend that we move forward with Paul's (Tofunmi's) recommendations:
1. skills/code-review/SKILL.md 2. skills/database/SKILL.md 3. skills/cob-batch/SKILL.md 4. skills/testing/SKILL.md (For example: New integration tests MUST use the Feign-based Fineract client (fineract-client-feign), NOT RestAssured) 5. skills/security/SKILL.md The discussions I had at Community Over Code and the sessions I attended strongly indicated that we need to start to take these steps. The content of those skills needs to be reviewed by Committers and that's where some of the value of the community lies. I think those are just project files that are the functional equivalent of "coding guidelines". I would like to see an early version of these, minimally designed and tightly related to our project norms as we know them today. Get those into the review process. We're not saying - "everyone should use AI without control", we're saying, if you are pointing your AI tooling at our project, it and you should know about how we do things. Thanks On Fri, Sep 4, 2026 at 10:41 AM Adam Monsen <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the links, Aman. Fascinating. I hadn't considered how > requiring, e.g. "Assisted-By:" is basically free advertising for AI vendors. > > My knowledge & experience here is limited but I still don't see any > blockers, so I moved my proposal > <https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/6366> back to "ready for > review". Reviewers, please focus on the new AI Policy section in > CONTRIBUTING.md > <https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/6366/changes#diff-eca12c0a30e25b4b46522ebf89465a03ba72a03f540796c979137931d8f92055R275>. > That's the only relevant change. Comments/thumbs-ups/thumbs-downs welcome > (add your 👍 or 👎 or comments to the PR > <https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/6366/>, or keep this dev list > thread going). I'll check back in on this in 72 hrs. If the discussion is > over and I get an approval I'll go ahead and merge. If there's a veto, I'll > pause my work. >
