[watwut]

> From my experience reviewing, most contributors never read the policies, especially those making a "quick AI PR". I don't expect the new policy to change this much.

The policy allows the reviewer to reject it on the "AI" grounds.

[dspillett]

> allows the reviewer to reject it on the "AI" grounds

… but still unfortunately leaves reviewers having to spend time checking submissions and rejecting them.

[jon-wood]

At least half the people firing off LLM generated PRs will have left the "Coauthored-by: Claude" line on it allowing automated rejections.

[ivorius]

Unfortunately, only a single PR like this comes to mind. Most AI authors we've seen were identifiable mainly by overly verbose PR descriptions, meaningless code changes and copy-pasting more AI output when questioned.

[fendy3002]

oh but it'll be very2 helpful and the time spent will be short. It's easy to verify:

* new contributor?

* more than 10 files affected (higher count are more valid)?

* wall of text on description without screenshots, etc?

just close the PR as AI, and then the contributor can challenge it if they feel it should not.

[HelloNurse]

A contributor in good faith is going to accept criticism and resubmit an improved change: less files modified, more explanation, more focus, references to actual tickets and discussion with actual developers.