CONTRIBUTING.md: add AI policy

[GeorgeSapkin]

Given the recent increase of LLM-generated contributions and comments ¹, which leave maintainers reluctant to review PRs and to participate in further discussions, I propose adding a brief AI policy to the contributing guidelines. This policy requires human-written comments and contributions, with a human in the loop responsible for LLM-generated code, and discourages copy-pasting generated PR descriptions and comments.

Add a link to the AI policy and a LLM usage disclosure checkbox to the PR template.

Alternatively this could be in a separate policy file, or even a file in a top-level org-wide repo (i.e., .github ²), if it's generic enough.

This policy was adapted from Astral's AI Policy.

cc: @1715173329 @BKPepe @commodo @danielfdickinson @hnyman @stangri @wehagy

Footnotes

1. https://github.com/openwrt/packages/pull/30492#issuecomment-5644825977 ↩

2. https://docs.github.com/en/communities/setting-up-your-project-for-healthy-contributions/creating-a-default-community-health-file ↩

[BKPepe]

This policy requires human-written comments

Yes, please! 💯
This is must have.

[BKPepe]

I think this is a bit too strict. As a non native English speaker, I'll admit I use LLMs to help translate my comments these days. Previously, I relied on Google Translate or DeepL for specific words, and later moved on to Grammarly as my skills improved. Using an LLM makes the process much easier, even if the tone ends up a bit formal. :) Including my native language in a quote block is not what you want. 😶‍🌫️

[GeorgeSapkin]

How would you rephrase this? The goal is to avoid generic too-wordy LLM lost-in-translation prose.

[geldot]

I don't think it makes sense to encourage non-English posts as there's enough noise to navigate already.

If there's a genuine misunderstanding due to language barrier, a polite nudge is all it takes to get some clarification.

[dibdot]

@GeorgeSapkin I would suggest something like that: Using an LLM to translate or polish your comments is fine. Keep them short, review them before posting, and make sure they say what you mean.

[BKPepe]

Btw: Jellyfin has something similar or even LLVM, so it is kinda some standard, though.

[GeorgeSapkin]

These are very comprehensive. I tried to phrase the text as succinct as possible, considering people ignore what little guidelines there are at the moment.

[danielfdickinson]

I wonder if the policy should include that the only AI code review comments should be the ones by the (now terser) OpenWrt AI bot. I have found AI reviews by LLMs less strictly prompted to be concise are far too verbose (including raw Copilot). I have trialed some AI code reviewer, and until Hauke's recent terser update for OpenWrt AI, they've all been even wordier than I am, and that is not good.

[openwrt-ai]

Reviewed 1 new commit.

---

Generated by Claude Code

[openwrt-ai]

The section just above (CONTRIBUTING.md:18-26) points contributors at the project's own automated LLM reviewer, which posts LLM-generated comments autonomously. This rule and the "no autonomous agents" one at line 43 read as covering it too. Should both say they apply to contributors, not to project-run review tooling?

---

Generated by Claude Code

[BKPepe]

@openwrt-ai No worries. :) You're our friend, we like you, and your reviews are really helpful. 👍 We'll make an exception for you.

[dibdot]

@GeorgeSapkin Many thanks for the initiative!

One suggestion: The policy should specify how the involvement of LLMs in commits is to be indicated (e.g. by including the note ‘Assisted-by:’ or 'Co-authored-by:' at the end). Otherwise, everyone will do things differently.

[BKPepe]

I agree with @dibdot as well, but I would love to see it in main repo, too!

[GeorgeSapkin]

I was thinking of adding another checkbox to the PR template for voluntary LLM use disclosure on top of a commit trailer.

but I would love to see it in main repo, too!

That's what I suggested adding a .github repo for.

[geldot]

@GeorgeSapkin Many thanks for the initiative!

One suggestion: The policy should specify how the involvement of LLMs in commits is to be indicated (e.g. by including the note ‘Assisted-by:’ or 'Co-authored-by:' at the end). Otherwise, everyone will do things differently.

Not keen on this. It turns commit messages into a free unpaid advertising space for AI company brands, which is why Linux dropped the policy.

If someone must have assistance from an LLM then so be it, but what matters is that it goes through the same vigorous human review as any other commit.

(The harness that was used is probably more relevant than the underlying model, as that's what tends to determine what sources are used as reference and what procedures are followed. But again, this doesn't seem relevant for the commit log.)

[dibdot]

Not keen on this. It turns commit messages into a free unpaid advertising space for AI company brands, which is why Linux dropped the policy.

The kernel change is a proposed removal of the requirement, not merged yet, and the LKML thread is split. George’s PR template checkbox would be enough. My point is consistency, not attribution: reviewers benefit from knowing where to look, and right now everyone handles it differently.

[geldot]

Not keen on this. It turns commit messages into a free unpaid advertising space for AI company brands, which is why Linux dropped the policy.

The kernel change is a proposed removal of the requirement, not merged yet, and the LKML thread is split. George’s PR template checkbox would be enough. My point is consistency, not attribution: reviewers benefit from knowing where to look, and right now everyone handles it differently.

The checkbox idea makes perfect sense for GitHub interactions, bug reports, and PR discussions. Discussing a PR when the submitter appears to be non-human can feel demeaning.

(Once or twice, I've continued such a discussion and it turned out to be productive, so I'm undecided whether it should be totally banned, but agree it should be disclosed and probably discouraged.)

[BKPepe]

Thanks @GeorgeSapkin! 🙌

[dibdot]

@GeorgeSapkin Looks good to me, many thanks!

[openwrt-ai]

Commit checks

• 63e856a "CONTRIBUTING.md: add AI policy": the body leaves out the new mandatory LLM-usage disclosure rule (the WARNING block). Mention it in the body.

---

Generated by Claude Code

[efahl]

@danielfdickinson said:

I have found AI reviews by LLMs less strictly prompted to be concise are far too verbose

That's my major complaint, too. PRs with a giant wall of text just piss me off and I skip them as I don't want to dig through a ton of noise to get to the actual content. Hauke's tuning of the openwrtAI reviews is really excellent, but the unconstrained submissions that we're seeing need to be gutted of all that flowery description that adds nothing (and in fact detracts from understandability). For me, that should be a major point in the policy itself.

[GeorgeSapkin]

unconstrained submissions that we're seeing need to be gutted of all that flowery description that adds nothing

Wouldn't this just be a violation and thus closed? What would you phrase differently?

The alternative is to write a comprehensive policy similar to other projects with separate sections for definitions, scope of policy, requirements, permitted and forbidden usage, disclosure, enforcement, etc. But I'm afraid even fewer people will bother with reading.

[efahl]

Wouldn't this just be a violation and thus closed? What would you phrase differently?

I'd add a sentence to the "IMPORTANT" block, something like

Keep posts concise and to-the-point: no "wall of text".

[BKPepe]

but I would love to see it in main repo, too!

That's what I suggested adding a .github repo for.

@Ansuel, @hauke, @robimarko What do you think? Would that be suitable and something what main repo can consider?

[danielfdickinson]

Thank you @GeorgeSapkin!