Skip to content

ci: require AI assistance disclosure in PRs#9260

Open
dapplion wants to merge 2 commits intosigp:unstablefrom
dapplion:ai-pr-disclosure
Open

ci: require AI assistance disclosure in PRs#9260
dapplion wants to merge 2 commits intosigp:unstablefrom
dapplion:ai-pr-disclosure

Conversation

@dapplion
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@dapplion dapplion commented May 3, 2026

Issue Addressed

N/A — process change.

Proposed Changes

  • Add an ## AI Assistance Disclosure section to PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md with two required fields: tools used (free text; none if not used) and an author attestation.
  • Add .github/workflows/pr-ai-disclosure.yml to validate the section is present and filled in. Runs on pull_request_target (read-only, no checkout) so fork PRs are covered. Bots and the skip-ai-disclosure label are exempt.

Goal: normalize disclosure rather than discourage AI use, and make contributors explicitly vouch for code they submit. To gate merges, add the check to branch protection on unstable after this lands.

Earlier iteration of this PR had a three-tier "trivial / non-trivial" question; dropped because the boundary is fuzzy, unverifiable, and invites underreporting. The attestation is the only item enforceable in review anyway.

Additional Info

This PR's own description follows the new template — it's the first test of the workflow.

AI Assistance Disclosure

Tools used (required — write none if no AI was used): Claude Code (template wording and workflow scaffold; reviewed and edited by author)

Attestation (required):

  • I have read every line of this diff, understand what it does, and can explain it in review.

dapplion added 2 commits May 3, 2026 17:28
Add an `## AI Assistance Disclosure` section to the PR template asking
contributors (1) whether AI was used and at what level, (2) to attest
they have read and understand the diff, and (3) which tools they used.

A new workflow validates the section is present and filled in. It runs
on `pull_request_target` (read-only) so it works for fork PRs without
needing a checkout. Bots and PRs labeled `skip-ai-disclosure` are
exempt.
Drop the three-tier "trivial vs non-trivial" question — the boundary is
fuzzy and unverifiable, and invites underreporting. Keep only:

  - Tools used (free text; "none" if no AI was used)
  - Author attestation that the diff was read and is understood

Tools used implicitly answers yes/no, and the attestation is the only
item enforceable in review.
@michaelsproul
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Yeah I like this model. I think our contributor guidelines still give us the flexibility to reject vibe-coded PRs as well if we suspect the author hasn't understood it or the review burden would be too great compared to the benefit

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants