-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
docs: document AI contribution policy and agent guidelines #27
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
SamBarker
wants to merge
9
commits into
kroxylicious:main
Choose a base branch
from
SamBarker:ai-contribution-policy
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
82ebea7
Add AI contribution policy to CONTRIBUTING.md
SamBarker 87063db
Specify Assisted-by commit trailer for AI disclosure
SamBarker 5ce3afb
Add project tech stack overview to CONTRIBUTING.md
SamBarker 086469a
Add org-level AGENTS.md for AI tooling guidance
SamBarker 03f4f85
Clarify AI review and merge policy
SamBarker 1ed4241
Improve agent guidance for reviewability
SamBarker 35a2309
Strengthen copyright and contributor understanding language
SamBarker 9f2e062
Add conciseness and PR focus guidance
SamBarker 0ad85ef
Clarify when AI disclosure is and isn't required
SamBarker File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@ | ||
| # Kroxylicious AI Agent Guidelines | ||
|
|
||
| This file provides guidance to AI coding tools (such as GitHub Copilot, Claude Code, and similar) when working on repositories within the Kroxylicious organisation. | ||
|
|
||
| Contributors using AI tools should ensure their tool has access to this file and any repository-specific `AGENTS.md`. | ||
| Please also read the [Contributing Guidelines](./CONTRIBUTING.md), in particular the section on [Use of AI Assistance](./CONTRIBUTING.md#use-of-ai-assistance). | ||
|
|
||
| ## Contribution Process | ||
|
|
||
| ### DCO Sign-off | ||
|
|
||
| All commits must be signed off with the Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO). | ||
| Use `git commit -s` to add the sign-off automatically. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Assisted-by Trailer | ||
|
|
||
| Commits produced with AI assistance must include an `Assisted-by` trailer identifying the tool and model. | ||
| The trailer should be added to the commit message body, after the sign-off: | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| <commit message> | ||
|
|
||
| Signed-off-by: Name <email> | ||
| Assisted-by: <Tool and model> <noreply@example.com> | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ### Commit Discipline | ||
|
|
||
| - Each commit should be atomic and represent a single logical change. | ||
| - Keep commits small enough to be reviewed in a few minutes. | ||
| - Commit messages should explain *why* the change was made, not *what* changed. Reviewers read diffs — they can see what changed. Focus on the problem being solved, the reasoning, or the decision made. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Pull Requests | ||
|
|
||
| - A pull request should address a single cohesive goal. Do not bundle unrelated changes together — each PR should tell a clear story that a reviewer can follow from start to finish. | ||
| - All changes must be submitted as pull requests. | ||
| - At least one human [Committer](./COMMITTERS.md) must review and approve a pull request before it is merged. | ||
| Automated or AI-assisted reviews (such as security or style checks) may supplement but do not substitute for human review. | ||
| The decision to merge is always made by human Committer(s) following the project's [decision making](./GOVERNANCE.md#decision-making) framework. | ||
| - PR descriptions should focus on the problem being addressed, the approach taken, and any trade-offs or alternatives considered. Note any AI tool involvement. | ||
| - Ensure all CI checks pass before requesting review. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Conciseness | ||
|
|
||
| Be concise and efficient in all generated content. | ||
| Do not produce filler, boilerplate explanations, or unnecessary verbosity. | ||
| Stay focused on the goal at hand — reviewers' time is limited and every line should earn its place. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Copyright and Licensing | ||
|
|
||
| Do not reproduce copyrighted material in generated code, documentation, or other content. | ||
| If you are aware of controls or configuration that reduce the risk of reproducing copyrighted content, ensure they are active. | ||
| All contributions must be compatible with the project's [license](./LICENSE). | ||
|
|
||
| ### Naming and Comments | ||
|
|
||
| Prefer code that is self-describing through clear naming and structure. | ||
| A well-chosen name is almost always better than a comment. | ||
| Names should convey intent and purpose, not encode implementation logic — logic in a name will drift from reality just as quickly as a stale comment. | ||
| Reserve comments for reasoning or constraints that good naming alone cannot convey, but if you find yourself reaching for a comment, first consider whether a rename would make it unnecessary. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Technical Foundations | ||
|
|
||
| Kroxylicious is built with Java and [Apache Maven](https://maven.apache.org/). | ||
| Individual repositories will have their own `AGENTS.md` with specific build commands, architecture details, coding conventions, and testing expectations. | ||
|
|
||
| When working on a specific repository, always prefer guidance from that repository's `AGENTS.md` over this file for technical matters. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Open question: AI-assisted thinking vs AI-assisted production
One scenario worth considering: a contributor discusses design options with an AI tool but then writes the code and PR themselves, without the AI being directly involved in producing the contribution.
Under this policy, we don't think this requires disclosure. The contributor understood the problem, evaluated the options, and wrote the code — the AI influenced their thinking in much the same way that reading a blog post, discussing ideas with a colleague, or whiteboarding a design would. The policy is concerned with AI tools producing the content of a contribution, not with how a contributor arrived at their ideas.
This also helps clarify the intent behind "played a significant role in producing a contribution" — it's about the production of the submitted content, not about the contributor's broader learning or decision-making process.
Does this reading match others' expectations, or should the policy say something explicit about this distinction?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It matches my expectations. No need to say anything explicit.