Skip to content

Conversation

@titusfortner
Copy link
Member

We need an explicit AI contribution policy so we're all on the same page

I don't think we're actually seeing a lot of AI slop right now, but that can change.

💥 What does this PR do?

Adds an AI-assisted contribution policy to CONTRIBUTING.md and updates the PR template to include AI disclosure fields.

Policy covers:

  • Human-in-the-loop accountability
  • Disclosure when substantial AI assistance used
  • No autonomous agents opening PRs/pushing commits
  • No Co-Authored-By tags for AI tools
  • Quality bar unchanged
  • Copyright responsibility unchanged

PR template adds:

  • AI assistance section with required checkbox choice

🔧 Implementation Notes

Policy is inspired by the LLVM Project AI Tool Use Policy

Kept the policy short and enforceable rather than comprehensive.

🤖 AI assistance

  • No substantial AI assistance used
  • AI assisted (complete below)
    • Tool(s): Claude Code
    • What was generated: Initial draft of policy text and PR template sections
    • I reviewed all AI output and can explain the change

💡 Additional Considerations

  • Copilot coding agent is disabled at the org level
  • Enforcement is primarily social (maintainers can close non-compliant PRs)
  • Maintainers need to remove co-author references during squash merge

🔄 Types of changes

  • Cleanup (formatting, renaming)

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings February 2, 2026 18:46
@qodo-code-review
Copy link
Contributor

PR Type

Documentation


Description

  • Adds AI-assisted contribution policy to CONTRIBUTING.md

  • Requires human-in-the-loop review and understanding of AI output

  • Mandates disclosure of substantial AI assistance in PR descriptions

  • Updates PR template with AI assistance disclosure section


File Walkthrough

Relevant files
Documentation
CONTRIBUTING.md
Add AI-assisted contribution policy section                           

CONTRIBUTING.md

  • Adds comprehensive AI-assisted contributions section covering
    human-in-the-loop requirements
  • Specifies disclosure requirements for substantial AI-assisted work
  • Prohibits autonomous agents and Co-Authored-By tags for AI tools
  • Maintains quality standards and copyright responsibility
  • References LLVM Project AI Tool Use Policy as inspiration
+28/-0   
PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
Add AI assistance disclosure section to PR template           

.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md

  • Adds new "AI assistance" section with checkbox options
  • Requires explicit choice between no AI assistance or AI-assisted
    disclosure
  • Includes fields for tool name, what was generated, and review
    confirmation
  • References CONTRIBUTING.md for full policy details
+8/-0     

@selenium-ci selenium-ci added the B-build Includes scripting, bazel and CI integrations label Feb 2, 2026
@qodo-code-review
Copy link
Contributor

qodo-code-review bot commented Feb 2, 2026

PR Compliance Guide 🔍

Below is a summary of compliance checks for this PR:

Security Compliance
🟢
No security concerns identified No security vulnerabilities detected by AI analysis. Human verification advised for critical code.
Ticket Compliance
🎫 No ticket provided
  • Create ticket/issue
Codebase Duplication Compliance
Codebase context is not defined

Follow the guide to enable codebase context checks.

Custom Compliance
🟢
Generic: Comprehensive Audit Trails

Objective: To create a detailed and reliable record of critical system actions for security analysis
and compliance.

Status: Passed

Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules

Generic: Meaningful Naming and Self-Documenting Code

Objective: Ensure all identifiers clearly express their purpose and intent, making code
self-documenting

Status: Passed

Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules

Generic: Robust Error Handling and Edge Case Management

Objective: Ensure comprehensive error handling that provides meaningful context and graceful
degradation

Status: Passed

Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules

Generic: Secure Error Handling

Objective: To prevent the leakage of sensitive system information through error messages while
providing sufficient detail for internal debugging.

Status: Passed

Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules

Generic: Secure Logging Practices

Objective: To ensure logs are useful for debugging and auditing without exposing sensitive
information like PII, PHI, or cardholder data.

Status: Passed

Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules

Generic: Security-First Input Validation and Data Handling

Objective: Ensure all data inputs are validated, sanitized, and handled securely to prevent
vulnerabilities

Status: Passed

Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules

  • Update
Compliance status legend 🟢 - Fully Compliant
🟡 - Partial Compliant
🔴 - Not Compliant
⚪ - Requires Further Human Verification
🏷️ - Compliance label

@qodo-code-review
Copy link
Contributor

qodo-code-review bot commented Feb 2, 2026

PR Code Suggestions ✨

Explore these optional code suggestions:

CategorySuggestion                                                                                                                                    Impact
General
Correct list nesting indentation
Suggestion Impact:Updated the nested list under "AI assisted" from two-space indentation to four-space indentation to ensure proper Markdown nesting.

code diff:

 - [ ] AI assisted (complete below)
-  - Tool(s):
-  - What was generated:
-  - [ ] I reviewed all AI output and can explain the change
+    - Tool(s):
+    - What was generated:
+    - [ ] I reviewed all AI output and can explain the change

Increase the indentation for the nested list in the pull request template to
four spaces to ensure it renders correctly as a sublist.

.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md [18-21]

 - [ ] AI assisted (complete below)
-  - Tool(s):
-  - What was generated:
-  - [ ] I reviewed all AI output and can explain the change
+    - Tool(s):
+    - What was generated:
+    - [ ] I reviewed all AI output and can explain the change

[Suggestion processed]

Suggestion importance[1-10]: 3

__

Why: The suggestion correctly identifies a potential Markdown rendering issue. While two-space indentation often works, four spaces are more robust and guarantee correct nested list rendering across different parsers.

Low
  • Update

Copy link
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

This PR introduces an explicit AI-assisted contribution policy and aligns the pull request template with that policy so contributors can transparently disclose AI usage. The goal is to keep maintainers and contributors on the same page about acceptable AI use, disclosure expectations, and accountability.

Changes:

  • Add an "AI-assisted contributions" section to CONTRIBUTING.md covering human accountability, disclosure, no autonomous agents, and copyright responsibility.
  • Update .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md to include an "AI assistance" section with required checkboxes and fields for tool names and generated content.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File Description
CONTRIBUTING.md Adds a concise AI-assisted contribution policy detailing expectations for human review, disclosure, agent usage, quality, and copyright.
.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md Extends the PR template with an AI assistance disclosure section aligned with the new CONTRIBUTING policy.

Copy link
Member

@cgoldberg cgoldberg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like it 👍

We should add a "AI-generated" (or something) label in GitHub, so we can just add that to PR's that violate the policy and they will close with wording similar to what LLVM does:

"This PR doesn't appear to comply with our policy on tool-generated content,
and requires additional justification for why it is valuable enough to the
project for us to review it. Please see our developer policy on
AI-generated contributions: LINK HERE"

@cgoldberg
Copy link
Member

GitHub is also looking into changes to help with this:

https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/185387

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

Labels

A-needs decision TLC needs to discuss and agree B-build Includes scripting, bazel and CI integrations

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants