Improved AI-policy

I realize that I've broken my own AI-policy mutliple times now on other projects, and I will continue spending 30s on asking Claude to submit bug-fixing pull requests when needed  - so I'm changing the AI-policy

Author: tobixen

AI-POLICY.md

@@ -1,28 +1,59 @@
 # Policy on usage of Artifical Intelligence and other tools
 
+## Read this first
+
+The most important rule: Inform about it!
+
+If you've spent hours, perhaps a full day of your time writing up a
+pull request, then I sort of owe you something.  I should spend some
+of my time looking through the submission carefully, and if nothing
+else, I owe to be polite, respectful and guide you in the right
+direction or give a good explanation for why I think your pull request
+is pulling the project in the wrong direction.  A human being have
+feelings, I should be careful not to hurt your feelings.
+
+At the other hand, perhaps you've spent 30 seconds either doing `ruff
+check --fix ; gh pr create` or telling Claude to check what went wrong
+in the logs and submit a bugfix upstream.  Do I still owe
+you to spend time looking through the submission carefully and
+spending time being polite and caring about your feelings?
+
+Perhaps your pull request is just one out of many such "drive-by pull
+requests".  It doesn't scale for a maintainer to spent lots of time on
+each such pull request.  I should just accept or decline such requests
+rapidly with minimum effort.
+
+So it all boils down to this: Be honest about tool usage!
+
 ## Background
 
-From time to time I do get pull requests where the author has done
-little else than running some tool on the code and submitting it as a
-pull request.  Those pull requests may have value to the project, but
-it's dishonest to not be transparent about it; teaching me how to run
-the tool and integrating it into the CI workflow may have a bigger
-value than the changes provided by the tool.  Recently I've also
-started receiving pull requests with code changes generated by AI (and
-I've seen people posting screenshots of simple questions and answers
-from ChatGPT in forum discussions, without contributing anything else).
+The "30 second effort pull request" mentioned above may have value to
+the project, but it's dishonest to not be transparent about it.
+Sometimes, teaching me how to run the tool and integrating it into the
+CI workflow may have a bigger value than the changes provided by the
+tool.
 
 Starting in 2025-11, I've spent quite some time testing Claude.  I'm
 positively surprised, it's doing a much better job than what I had
 expected.  The AI may do things a lot faster, smarter and better than
 a good coder.  Sometimes.  Other times it may spend a lot of "tokens"
-and a long time coming up with sub-optimal solutions, or even
-solutions that doesn't work at all.  Perhaps at some time in the near
-future the AI will do the developer profession completely obsoleted -
-but as of 2026-02, my experiences is that the AI performs best when
-being "supervised" and "guided" by a good coder knowing the project.
+and a long time coming up with sub-optimal or really bad solutions.
+
+Perhaps at some time in the near future the AI will do the developer
+profession completely obsoleted - but as of 2026-02, my experiences is
+that the AI performs best when being "supervised" and "guided" by a
+good coder knowing the project.
+
+## Bugfixes are (most often) welcome
+
+Over the past month, playing with a "max" subscription with Claude,
+I've made it into a rule that when I stumble upon some weird bug in
+some software or libraries I'm using or dependent on, I always ask
+Claude to analyze the bug, check the outstanding issues in the
+project, either create a new issue or consider if there is anything of
+value to add to an existing issue, and come up with a pull-request.  Being a bit aware of the
 
-## The rules
+## General rules
 
 * Do **respect the maintainers time**.  If/when the maintainer gets
   overwhelmed by pull requests of questionable quality or pull