Add AI disclosure notes to PR template - #10
Merged
Conversation
g-elwell
requested review from
ampersarnie,
jaymcp,
jrmd,
markgoodyear,
scottblackburn and
spbuckle
May 20, 2025 13:19
jaymcp
reviewed
May 20, 2025
jaymcp
approved these changes
May 20, 2025
ampersarnie
approved these changes
May 20, 2025
jrmd
approved these changes
May 20, 2025
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Description
Adds additional sections to our default PR template to promote self-disclosure of AI usage.
We're not trying to discourage AI usage here, rather encourage openness and transparency around where and how it has been used by pull request authors.
This will be beneficial to the whole pull request / review process, since a reviewer can focus in on areas where AI was leaned on due to the author being unsure, and conversely a reviewer can tailor how they review code with full knowledge of which pieces might have been auto-generated.
For example, if a section of code is perhaps taking the wrong direction, but only took a couple minutes to implement as an AI suggestion, a reviewer might be more inclined to nudge an author towards binning it and trying another approach, rather than providing in-depth feedback.
We also want to reinforce the point that whilst you can use AI to generate code, you are ultimately responsible for it's output so should take time to edit, adjust, format and understand it prior to creating a pull request.
This is open to feedback and suggestions, and should be adjusted as the landscape and our usage of AI evolves.