docs: add ai policy#821
Merged
steveiliop56 merged 5 commits intomainfrom Apr 27, 2026
Merged
Conversation
dosubot
Bot
added
the
size:S
Contributor
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded
To keep reviews running without waiting, you can enable usage-based add-on for your organization. This allows additional reviews beyond the hourly cap. Account admins can enable it under billing. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. ℹ️ Review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (3)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughAdds Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In `@AI_POLICY.md`:
- Around line 13-15: Update AI_POLICY.md to improve wording and fix typos:
change "whether or not" to "whether" in the sentence beginning "LLM pull
requests are not guaranteed to be accepted or prioritized", add the missing
hyphen to "Large LLM generated pull requests will be rejected" (make it "Large
LLM-generated pull requests"), and correct the typo "intelisense" to
"IntelliSense" (or "intelliSense" if lowercase style is preferred) wherever it
appears; ensure the three edits preserve original meaning and punctuation for
readability.
- Line 11: The policy sentence asserting legal/ownership conclusions is too
absolute; update the line "**No LLM-generated content other than text is
allowed**: The only type of content that can be generated by an LLM and used in
Tinyauth is text/code. Any other type of content generated by an LLM cannot be
used with the license and thus does not have clear ownership." to a
project-scoped rule that avoids legal assertions—rephrase to state the project's
allowed LLM outputs (e.g., restrict to text/code) and explain this is a project
policy or compatibility concern rather than a blanket legal ownership claim,
removing phrases like "cannot be used with the license" and "does not have clear
ownership" and replacing them with neutral language such as "is not permitted by
this project's policy" or "may not be compatible with this project's licensing
requirements."
- Line 23: The sentence that currently allows contributors to “skip the above
guidelines” conflicts with the document’s earlier mandatory rules; replace that
sentence (the one containing "skip the above guidelines") with a clear, scoped
exception that states contributors may use LLM-assisted tools for
non-policy-breaking tasks only if they still comply with the mandatory rules and
explicitly disclose any LLM-generated content in the PR description; ensure the
wording references the existing "mandatory rules" block and adds a short
disclosure requirement so reviewers and contributors have no ambiguity.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: f751f9c1-9b6c-437c-9768-e9538ef9a69c
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
AI_POLICY.md
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
♻️ Duplicate comments (1)
AI_POLICY.md (1)
21-21:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 MinorAvoid absolute legal wording in policy text.
“cannot be used as it cannot be licensed” reads as a blanket legal conclusion. Prefer project-scoped policy wording (e.g., “not permitted by this project’s policy/licensing constraints”) to avoid legal ambiguity.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@AI_POLICY.md` at line 21, Update the policy sentence that reads “cannot be used as it cannot be licensed” to avoid absolute legal language; replace it with a project-scoped phrasing like “not permitted by this project’s policy/licensing constraints” or similar wording that confines the restriction to the project policy. Locate the sentence in AI_POLICY.md (the policy line that begins “No generated content other than text is allowed”) and edit that clause to remove the blanket legal conclusion and substitute the suggested project-scoped phrasing while preserving the intent that only text outputs are permitted.
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
AI_POLICY.md (1)
23-23: Define “large amount” with an enforceable threshold.“Large generated pull requests” is currently subjective. Consider adding a concrete threshold or reviewer rubric so contributors can predict rejection criteria.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@AI_POLICY.md` at line 23, Update the "Large generated pull requests will be rejected" policy line to include a concrete, enforceable threshold and reviewer rubric: specify a numeric limit (e.g., >500 lines of generated code, >10 files, or >1 MB of added content) or a percentage of PR content treated as generated (e.g., >30% generated), require authors to annotate generated files with a GENERATED header and include a short justification in the PR description, and add reviewer steps (how to measure via git diff, CI checks, or labels like GENERATED) to decide rejection versus request-for-split; reference the policy sentence "Large generated pull requests will be rejected" when making the change.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Duplicate comments:
In `@AI_POLICY.md`:
- Line 21: Update the policy sentence that reads “cannot be used as it cannot be
licensed” to avoid absolute legal language; replace it with a project-scoped
phrasing like “not permitted by this project’s policy/licensing constraints” or
similar wording that confines the restriction to the project policy. Locate the
sentence in AI_POLICY.md (the policy line that begins “No generated content
other than text is allowed”) and edit that clause to remove the blanket legal
conclusion and substitute the suggested project-scoped phrasing while preserving
the intent that only text outputs are permitted.
---
Nitpick comments:
In `@AI_POLICY.md`:
- Line 23: Update the "Large generated pull requests will be rejected" policy
line to include a concrete, enforceable threshold and reviewer rubric: specify a
numeric limit (e.g., >500 lines of generated code, >10 files, or >1 MB of added
content) or a percentage of PR content treated as generated (e.g., >30%
generated), require authors to annotate generated files with a GENERATED header
and include a short justification in the PR description, and add reviewer steps
(how to measure via git diff, CI checks, or labels like GENERATED) to decide
rejection versus request-for-split; reference the policy sentence "Large
generated pull requests will be rejected" when making the change.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 0af4d05f-948c-4de8-9614-cd332aaf61a6
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
AI_POLICY.md
Rycochet
reviewed
Apr 27, 2026
Rycochet
reviewed
Apr 27, 2026
scottmckendry
previously approved these changes
Apr 27, 2026
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
♻️ Duplicate comments (1)
AI_POLICY.md (1)
16-16:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 MinorUse consistent hyphenation and simplify “whether or not”.
Line 16 and Line 22 should use “AI-generated” for consistency, and Line 22 can be tightened by changing “whether or not” to “whether”.
Suggested edit
-We expect the Tinyauth community to use AI as a tool for faster development and not as a way to implement entire features through prompts. For this reason, the following guidelines are in place for AI generated content: +We expect the Tinyauth community to use AI as a tool for faster development and not as a way to implement entire features through prompts. For this reason, the following guidelines are in place for AI-generated content: @@ -- **AI pull requests are not guaranteed to be accepted or prioritized**: Any pull request that contains AI generated content is not guaranteed to be accepted and/or prioritized. The maintainers are responsible for reviewing all pull requests and determining whether or not they meet the standards of the project. AI generated content will be reviewed with the same standards as any other content, and may be rejected if it does not meet those standards. +- **AI pull requests are not guaranteed to be accepted or prioritized**: Any pull request that contains AI-generated content is not guaranteed to be accepted and/or prioritized. The maintainers are responsible for reviewing all pull requests and determining whether they meet the standards of the project. AI-generated content will be reviewed with the same standards as any other content, and may be rejected if it does not meet those standards.Also applies to: 22-22
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@AI_POLICY.md` at line 16, Replace the inconsistent phrase "AI generated" with the hyphenated form "AI-generated" in the sentence containing "AI generated content" and the later occurrence on Line 22, and simplify the phrase "whether or not" to "whether" where it appears on Line 22; update the exact phrases "AI generated content" and "whether or not" to "AI-generated content" and "whether" respectively to keep hyphenation consistent and tighten wording.
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
AI_POLICY.md (1)
23-23: Define “large amount” to make enforcement predictable.Line 23 is currently subjective. Consider adding a concrete threshold or reviewer criteria to avoid inconsistent rejections.
Suggested edit
-- **Large generated pull requests will be rejected**: Any pull request that contains a large amount of generated content will be rejected. This is because it is difficult for the maintainers to review and verify large amounts of generated content. +- **Large generated pull requests will be rejected**: Pull requests with substantial generated content may be rejected when maintainers cannot reasonably review and verify them. As a guideline, keep AI-generated changes small, scoped, and easy to audit.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@AI_POLICY.md` at line 23, Replace the subjective rule under the bullet "**Large generated pull requests will be rejected**" with a concrete threshold and reviewer criteria: specify measurable limits (for example "PRs where >50% of lines changed or >500 added lines are generated, or where >3 files contain generated content"), state whether the threshold is per-author or per-PR, and add guidance for reviewers (e.g., require a brief generated-content summary, CI provenance, and explicit maintainer approval to accept exceptions). Ensure the new text replaces the current sentence and mentions the exact bullet heading "**Large generated pull requests will be rejected**" so reviewers can find it.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In `@AI_POLICY.md`:
- Line 19: In the policy sentence under "All generated content should be
completely understood by the account holder" replace the typo "full extend" with
the correct phrase "full extent" so the sentence reads "...understanding the
resulting output to the full extent and being able to explain it in detail...";
update the string containing "full extend" accordingly.
---
Duplicate comments:
In `@AI_POLICY.md`:
- Line 16: Replace the inconsistent phrase "AI generated" with the hyphenated
form "AI-generated" in the sentence containing "AI generated content" and the
later occurrence on Line 22, and simplify the phrase "whether or not" to
"whether" where it appears on Line 22; update the exact phrases "AI generated
content" and "whether or not" to "AI-generated content" and "whether"
respectively to keep hyphenation consistent and tighten wording.
---
Nitpick comments:
In `@AI_POLICY.md`:
- Line 23: Replace the subjective rule under the bullet "**Large generated pull
requests will be rejected**" with a concrete threshold and reviewer criteria:
specify measurable limits (for example "PRs where >50% of lines changed or >500
added lines are generated, or where >3 files contain generated content"), state
whether the threshold is per-author or per-PR, and add guidance for reviewers
(e.g., require a brief generated-content summary, CI provenance, and explicit
maintainer approval to accept exceptions). Ensure the new text replaces the
current sentence and mentions the exact bullet heading "**Large generated pull
requests will be rejected**" so reviewers can find it.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 355ebc0c-0b78-4edf-89c8-111445a9c993
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
AI_POLICY.md
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
♻️ Duplicate comments (1)
AI_POLICY.md (1)
16-16:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 MinorStandardize “AI-generated” phrasing for consistency.
Line 16 and Line 22 use “AI generated”; use “AI-generated” consistently across the policy (and optionally simplify “whether or not” → “whether” in Line 22).
Proposed wording update
-We expect the Tinyauth community to use AI as a tool for faster development and not as a way to implement entire features through prompts. For this reason, the following guidelines are in place for AI generated content: +We expect the Tinyauth community to use AI as a tool for faster development and not as a way to implement entire features through prompts. For this reason, the following guidelines are in place for AI-generated content: @@ -- **AI pull requests are not guaranteed to be accepted or prioritized**: Any pull request that contains AI generated content is not guaranteed to be accepted and/or prioritized. The maintainers are responsible for reviewing all pull requests and determining whether or not they meet the standards of the project. AI generated content will be reviewed with the same standards as any other content, and may be rejected if it does not meet those standards. +- **AI pull requests are not guaranteed to be accepted or prioritized**: Any pull request that contains AI-generated content is not guaranteed to be accepted and/or prioritized. The maintainers are responsible for reviewing all pull requests and determining whether they meet the standards of the project. AI-generated content will be reviewed with the same standards as any other content, and may be rejected if it does not meet those standards.Also applies to: 22-22
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@AI_POLICY.md` at line 16, Replace the inconsistent phrase "AI generated" with the hyphenated form "AI-generated" throughout the policy (search for the literal string "AI generated") and optionally simplify the wording "whether or not" to "whether" where present (search for "whether or not") to make the language consistent and concise.
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
AI_POLICY.md (1)
23-23: Define what “large” means to make this rule enforceable.Line 23 rejects “large” generated PRs but doesn’t define the threshold. Consider adding objective criteria (e.g., percentage of changed lines/files) or explicit reviewer discretion language.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@AI_POLICY.md` at line 23, The rule "**Large generated pull requests will be rejected**" is ambiguous; update that policy line to include objective thresholds and reviewer guidance — e.g., define "large" as either >30% of changed lines being generated, >200 generated lines changed, or >10 generated files, and add a clause allowing maintainer discretion for exceptions and a required justification field in PR descriptions; edit the policy text around the existing "**Large generated pull requests will be rejected**" sentence to add these numerical thresholds, the exception process, and examples so maintainers can enforce it consistently.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Duplicate comments:
In `@AI_POLICY.md`:
- Line 16: Replace the inconsistent phrase "AI generated" with the hyphenated
form "AI-generated" throughout the policy (search for the literal string "AI
generated") and optionally simplify the wording "whether or not" to "whether"
where present (search for "whether or not") to make the language consistent and
concise.
---
Nitpick comments:
In `@AI_POLICY.md`:
- Line 23: The rule "**Large generated pull requests will be rejected**" is
ambiguous; update that policy line to include objective thresholds and reviewer
guidance — e.g., define "large" as either >30% of changed lines being generated,
>200 generated lines changed, or >10 generated files, and add a clause allowing
maintainer discretion for exceptions and a required justification field in PR
descriptions; edit the policy text around the existing "**Large generated pull
requests will be rejected**" sentence to add these numerical thresholds, the
exception process, and examples so maintainers can enforce it consistently.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: dfab5f7b-9027-4e40-96a6-15c7aebc9d9e
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
AI_POLICY.md
dosubot
Bot
added
size:M
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
3 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.
Summary by CodeRabbit