Add AI agent policy documentation

[dozro]

Description

This pull request introduces and documents a clear policy restricting the use of autonomous AI agents in this repository. It adds a new AGENTS.md file with detailed guidelines, updates the contribution documentation, and adds supporting policy files and editor settings to ensure compliance and clarity for all contributors.

Type of change

docs change?

Checklist:

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings

AI disclosure:

no ai :3, but copied content from linux's ai guidelines

Signed-off-by: Rye git@itsrye.dev

[Rosy-iso]

I approve the idea, my only concern is that many people just automatically assume something is vibe coded when they see AGENTS.md or similar...could there be a way to achieve the same result with a filename that won't cause this confusion?

[nushea]

I approve the idea, my only concern is that many people just automatically assume something is vibe coded when they see AGENTS.md or similar...could there be a way to achieve the same result with a filename that won't cause this confusion?

there has been a trend in many anti-ai repositories to put their AI statements in AGENTS.md, if anything as a way to cause disruption to the LLM analyzing the prs, so if we want to keep in line with the anti-ai repos (which admitedly we are not) the agents.md makes a lot of sense

Also i think it might hijack someone' prewriten AGENTS.md that they might have added to their .gitignore so thats a bonus too in my book, just that extra annoyance for them

[Rosy-iso]

I get the idea, but what about those that do automatically assume this is vibe coded cause of the file?

[nushea]

I get the idea, but what about those that do automatically assume this is vibe coded cause of the file?

i mean if they wanted to consider whether the project is ai generated they would use the 'block claude/copilot' trick, i do not believe there is anything that could worsen the sable image by putting explicit restrictions in those places. There are bigger telltales of ai usage in the project in my opinion

[dozro]

I get the idea, but what about those that do automatically assume this is vibe coded cause of the file?

https://noai.starlightnet.work/list.html for example lists projects with fake ai instructions (beside others)

examples:

• https://codeberg.org/dmpmem/rsstrogen/src/branch/master/CLAUDE.md
• https://codeberg.org/poezio/slixmpp/commit/8b39a90806801b13607a23952dfb1e1e6305d200
• https://github.com/kanidm/kanidm/blob/master/AGENTS.md

[7w1]

This section should probably be removed unless we're adding a DCO sign off requirement for contributions in general (in which case we need to write it somewhere other than AGENTS.md)?

Unless we reword it and say fully autonomous comments must have a DCO sign off, and use that as a reason to close any PRs with sign offs.

[dozro]

True. Forgot to remove the copy-paste relict

[dozro]

Having a per-commit DCO can be kinda annoying. Having it like matrix spec proposals (aka sign off your pr) would be a fair compromise.

If we were to add a DCO.

[nushea]

If it would require signing with the contributor's actual Legal Name it might be an inhibitor for contributions from transgender individuals, since it might require them to Dead-Name themselves

[dozro]

How does Linux actually handle that /gen?

(I wouldn't endorse something making people doxx themselves)

[nushea]

I am not sure about Linux, but I know that whenever a friend of mine wanted to contribute to Gentoo there was a lot of confusion about how she would be able to until she got an exception from using the Legal Name on the DCO (still having to use a Consistently Identifiable Name to tie to her in case that she infringed copyright to be able to point to her legally)

[nushea]

(I am not sure about how DCO law/setups work, I was just thinking back to that as a thing to keep in mind if we establish a DCO)

[dozro]

Linux says

using a known identity (sorry, no anonymous contributions.)

see https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html

Which sounds reasonable

i read it as not strictly require a legal birth name, but forbidding completely anonymous contributions or throwaway accounts.

A well-established, consistently used pseudonym or preferred name that firmly connects back to the contributor's identity is acceptable.

[nushea]

That is still a bit ambiguous but that is very fair so if it is added it should be in that way

[dozro]

i tried to give it a shot in File :3