From 934cf7e988f7f87cb22215499843b48630455e21 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicolas Mowen Date: Fri, 1 May 2026 11:12:53 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] tweak --- CONTRIBUTING.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.md b/CONTRIBUTING.md index 615fb4895..e25c20835 100644 --- a/CONTRIBUTING.md +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.md @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ We're not trying to gatekeep how you write code. Use whatever tools make you pro Some honest context: when we review a PR, we're not just evaluating whether the code works today. We're evaluating whether we can maintain it, debug it, and extend it long-term — often without the original author's involvement. Code that the author doesn't deeply understand is code that nobody understands, and that's a liability. -One more thing worth saying directly: most maintainers already have access to the same AI tools you do. A PR that's entirely AI-generated — where the author can't explain the design, debug issues independently, or engage substantively in design discussions — doesn't offer something we couldn't produce ourselves. What makes a contribution genuinely valuable is the human judgment and domain understanding behind it, and the engagement during review that shapes it into something we can confidently take on long-term. +One more thing worth saying directly: most maintainers already have access to the same AI tools you do. A PR that's entirely AI-generated — where the author can't explain the design, debug issues independently, or engage substantively in design discussions — doesn't offer something we couldn't produce ourselves. What makes a contribution genuinely valuable is the human judgment and domain understanding behind it, as well as the engagement during review that shapes it into something we can confidently take on long-term. ## Pull request guidelines