You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
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.
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
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
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
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
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
CONTRIBUTING.mdand PR field #3701CONTRIBUTING.md. Add wording along the lines of:CONTRIBUTING.mdand PR field #3701AGENTS.md(under discussion) - WIP in docs: AddAGENTS.md#3821SKILL.mdfiles. Examples from polars itself: https://github.com/polars-inc/skills.review.mddescribing what to look for and how to structure the review.Additional references:
Selector.__xor__andExpr.__xor__for symmetric difference #3621testing.constructorsmodule and a pytest plugin #3552