Skip to content

Add an AI Policy #3632

Description

@FBruzzesi

Opening as an issue to track progress, following the Discord thread discussion.


Important

The goal is to set sensible guardrails that protect maintainer time without categorically rejecting AI-assisted work, while keeping human contributors and human review as the priority.


Proposed measures

  • Mandatory AI disclosure on PRs. Requires adding a PR-template field asking whether any AI tool or model was used, and which one. The point is transparency. Addressed by docs: Add 'AI-assisted contributions' section in CONTRIBUTING.md and PR field #3701
  • Responsibility clause in CONTRIBUTING.md. Add wording along the lines of:

    You are responsible for every line you submit, regardless of how it was produced. Disclosure does not transfer responsibility to the tool.

  • Author responsiveness as the bar: PRs where the author does not engage with review feedback are closed without extended discussion. This is reactive, not preventive: we cannot screen for it upfront, but we can be explicit that PRs where the author does not respond to review feedback will be closed without extended discussion, whether or not AI was used. Addressed by docs: Add 'AI-assisted contributions' section in CONTRIBUTING.md and PR field #3701
  • Add an AGENTS.md (under discussion) - WIP in docs: Add AGENTS.md  #3821
  • Ship a user-facing SKILL.md files. Examples from polars itself: https://github.com/polars-inc/skills.
  • AI-assisted PR review as a supplement to, and never a replacement for, human review. Open questions are:
    • Cost: Do any vendors offer a free allowance for open source projects worth investigating?
      • coderabbit Pro plan is free for Open Source projects
      • qodo also free for OSS
    • If individual maintainers use AI personally for review, we could add a review.md describing what to look for and how to structure the review.
    • Edit: my personal stand on this is that, although useful, these kind of reviews should not run by default, but only when triggered. The main risk I see is biasing the reviewer and/or give a false sense of trust

Additional references:

Activity

  1. dangotbanned commented on May 16, 2026

    @dangotbanned
    Member

    I think we should steal this part from First-time contributions

    You must post a screenshot of you successfully running the test suite (...), locally on your machine (not the CI).

    Not impossible for a bot to do - but it is definitely an easy temperature check for us to see if that PR has a screenshot 🙂.

    The polars ci adds a first-contribution tag, so that's another thing to make it easy for us to see when we might need a closer look.
    If you follow that link, there are PRs that still ignore this request that look like AI to me

  2. dangotbanned commented on May 16, 2026

    @dangotbanned
    Member

    @MarcoGorelli how would feel about adding a new label like suggest close, so we can avoid any close/reopen whiplash moving forward 🫣?

    I'm happy to wait for a second opinion before making a call

  3. MarcoGorelli commented on May 16, 2026

    @MarcoGorelli
    Member

    yup sure

  4. FBruzzesi commented on Oct 3, 2026

    @FBruzzesi
    MemberAuthor

    Should we consider this issue resolved? Should we investigate the use of coderabbit given the latest increase in newcomers contributions?

  5. MarcoGorelli commented on Oct 3, 2026

    @MarcoGorelli
    Member

    sure, happy to investigate coderabbit - i've heard good things from other projects about using ai reviews as a supplement to human reviews, if they offer a free plan for OSS i think it's worth trying

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions