Comment by dspillett
1 day ago
> allows the reviewer to reject it on the "AI" grounds
… but still unfortunately leaves reviewers having to spend time checking submissions and rejecting them.
1 day ago
> allows the reviewer to reject it on the "AI" grounds
… but still unfortunately leaves reviewers having to spend time checking submissions and rejecting them.
At least half the people firing off LLM generated PRs will have left the "Coauthored-by: Claude" line on it allowing automated rejections.
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.
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.
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.