Hi, Martjin, Thanks for bringing this up. I'd +1 on this proposal.
In the guidelines, I'd like to emphasize that contributors and reviewers should pay particular attention to architecture, performance, and code reusability. Based on my experience working with AI, code agents often fall short in these. And furthermore, I suggest we introduce mechanisms to ensure a smooth review process for AI-generated code, such as adding github labels and a special reminder for reviewers from the flink's github bot. Best, Zakelly On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 10:09 AM Rion Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Martijn, > > I think this is a great idea and definitely an effort worth pursuing — > it’s actually something I’ve been considering experimenting with myself. A > clear +1 from me, and I’d be happy to help as the effort develops. > > On the reviewer side, we already have a pretty solid set of guardrails and > review processes in place, which is great. That said, it’s still easy to > become inundated by a large, random PR with little or no context (sometimes > clearly AI-driven). Establishing some guidelines specifically around AI > usage — both for providing development context and for helping with the > review/audit process — would be fantastic, even if we start small and > gradually evolve things over time. > > Thanks for kicking this off. Looking forward to hearing what others think. > > Cheers, > > Rion > > > > On Mar 12, 2026, at 8:50 PM, Leonard Xu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Martijn, > > > > Thanks for kicking off this discussion. I've been thinking along similar > lines recently, so you have a +1 from me on this proposal. > > > > I also have a suggestion regarding activity on the users' mailing list. > Could we consider introducing an AI agent to help answer users' questions? > I've noticed that many inquiries on user@flink currently go unanswered, > yet most of them could be effectively addressed by an agent. > > > > > > Best, > > Leonard > > > >> 2026 3月 13 05:03，Martijn Visser <[email protected]> 写道： > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I'd like to start a discussion about how the Flink community should > handle > >> AI-assisted contributions and how we can make the Flink codebase more > >> accessible to AI tooling. > >> > >> The ASF has published guidance on generative AI tooling [1], and several > >> Apache projects have already adopted project-specific guidelines on top > of > >> that. I think Flink should too. > >> > >> The most comprehensive example I've seen is Apache Airflow. They've > added > >> an AGENTS.md [2] with instructions for AI coding agents, including PR > >> templates with an AI disclosure checkbox, a self-review checklist, and > the > >> Generated-by: commit message token that the ASF guidance recommends. > Apache > >> Iceberg recently adopted AI contribution guidelines [3] focused on > >> contributor accountability: you must be able to debug, explain, and own > the > >> changes. Other projects like Paimon [4], Mahout [5], and Ozone [6] have > >> adopted similar policies. > >> > >> I'd like to propose the following for Flink: > >> > >> 1. Adopt contribution guidelines for AI-assisted PRs. Contributors must > >> disclose when AI tooling was used (using Generated-by: <Tool Name and > >> Version> in the commit message), and must be able to explain and take > >> ownership of all changes. AI-generated code is held to the same review > >> standards as human-written code. > >> 2. Add AGENTS.md files to the Flink repository. AGENTS.md [7] is a > >> convention for giving AI coding agents project-specific context. It can > >> contain information like build instructions, test commands, coding > >> conventions, commit message format. I think we should add one at the > root > >> of apache/flink. > >> 3. Add module-level context for AI tooling. This is where I think we can > >> take a step forward. Each Flink module (e.g. flink-streaming-java, > >> flink-table-planner, flink-clients) would benefit from its own AGENTS.md > >> explaining the module's role, key abstractions, testing patterns, and > >> common pitfalls. This also serves as architectural documentation that > helps > >> human contributors. > >> > >> I'm looking forward to hearing what others think about this. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Martijn > >> > >> [1] https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html > >> [2] https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/AGENTS.md > >> [3] > >> > https://iceberg.apache.org/contribute/#guidelines-for-ai-assisted-contributions > >> [4] > >> > https://github.com/apache/paimon/blob/master/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md?plain=1#L22 > >> [5] > >> > https://github.com/apache/mahout/blob/main/docs/community/pr-policy-and-review-guidelines.md > >> [6] > >> > https://github.com/apache/ozone-site/blob/master/src/pages/release-notes/2.0.0.md?plain=1#L408 > >> [7] https://agents.md/ > > >
