> FWIW I don't know any open source maintainer who got a response from Anthropic after signing up, I tried and also signed up to their security tool which they say is free and expedited for open source maintainers have got no response: https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-code-security. Perhaps this is just an email farming exercise from Anthropic?
I truly hope they are simply overwhelmed and their, ehm, agents, struggle to just process the requests :) On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 4:49 PM Damian Shaw <[email protected]> wrote: > > And since we have at the very least 6 months of free Claude Code Max for > maintainers of big OSS projects > https://claude.com/contact-sales/claude-for-oss as of 3 days (liteally > day after I paid for my first month)!!!) - Airflow definitely qualifies, so > all core maintainers can get it regardless if their employees already pay > them for it. So if you have not done it yet - apply :D. > > FWIW I don't know any open source maintainer who got a response from > Anthropic after signing up, I tried and also signed up to their security > tool which they say is free and expedited for open source maintainers have > got no response: https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-code-security. > Perhaps this is just an email farming exercise from Anthropic? > > Damian > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 5:21 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Active approach to fighting with AI slop (while > keeping maintainers in the driving seat) > > Yeah. But with this rate of development with Claude - we will have it all > done before they even start :D. I literally Claude-Coded the entire thing > yesterday afternoon. > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 10:55 AM Aritra Basu <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Jarek what's your opinion on taking up some of these improvements as > > part of Gsoc? I think it's separated from airflow enough that it won't > > overwhelm new entrants, also can make a relatively large project out > > of it if planned well? > > -- > > Regards, > > Aritra Basu > > > > On Mon, 2 Mar 2026, 3:12 pm Jarek Potiuk, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Basically, try to keep the content in these files to an absolute > > minimum > > > focusing on information that cannot be inferred/discovered, one-line > > > code patterns, disallowed behaviours, links to guides. > > > > > > Absolutely. And as usual.. PRs are welcome :) > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 10:40 AM Nathan Hadfield < > > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > On the topic of CLAUDE/AGENTS.md files, there was a rather > > > > interesting paper published recently about their effectiveness. > > > > > > > > https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.11988 > > > > > > > > The TD;LR is > > > > > > > > > > > > * > > > > LLM-generated context files reduce success rates (0.5-2%) while > > > increasing > > > > inference cost by 20-23% > > > > * > > > > Developer-written files help slightly (+4%), but verbose content > > > > that duplicates existing docs is pure cost > > > > * > > > > Codebase overviews don't improve navigation: agents find relevant > > > > files > > > in > > > > the same number of steps regardless > > > > > > > > Basically, try to keep the content in these files to an absolute > > minimum > > > > focusing on information that cannot be inferred/discovered, > > > > one-line > > code > > > > patterns, disallowed behaviours, links to guides. > > > > > > > > Hope this helps. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Nathan > > > > > > > > From: Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > > > > Date: Monday, 2 March 2026 at 09:29 > > > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Active approach to fighting with AI slop > > > > (while keeping maintainers in the driving seat) > > > > > > > > This Message Is From an External Sender This message came from > > > > outside your organization. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also: I am thinking of more tools like that - especially one that > > > > will allow us to auto-triage issues and use an LLM to speed up > > > > issue classification for provider releases (once suggested by > > > > Shahar I think) > > > and > > > > many more things. > > > > > > > > The quality of good models is amazing. I am literally stunned by > > > > what Claude Code can do today - I tried it few months ago and the > > > > difference > > > is > > > > night and day. I literally entirely Claude-Coded the whole thing > > > > without writing a single line of code myself. > > > > > > > > And since we have at the very least 6 months of free Claude Code > > > > Max > > for > > > > maintainers of big OSS projects > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://claude.com/contact-sales/claude-fo > > r-oss__;!!Ci6f514n9QsL8ck!mS8qTovb9go2kfJwcUGGry6yWpOOcdvB2IXJYYHcOEam > > -B2gTQQ_dcYm19lzIlgAKCiUragw0XqPXOJZ$ > > > > as of 3 days (liteally day > > > > after I paid for my first month)!!!) - Airflow definitely > > > > qualifies, so > > > all > > > > core maintainers can get it regardless if their employees already > > > > pay > > > them > > > > for it. So if you have not done it yet - apply :D. > > > > > > > > J. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 10:22 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > maybe we should use the new LLMOperator form common.ai as an > > option > > > > > (hehe)! > > > > > Just joking, of course. > > > > > > > > > > Crossed my mind :D > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 10:20 AM Pavankumar Gopidesu < > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> This is really cool, Jarek. Thanks for sharing. A tool like > > > > >> this is definitely necessary given the current volume of AI > > > > >> slope and PRs > > > being > > > > >> submitted without proper context. > > > > >> > > > > >> maybe we should use the new LLMOperator form common.ai as an > > > > >> option (hehe)! > > > > >> Just joking, of course. > > > > >> > > > > >> Regards, > > > > >> Pavan > > > > >> > > > > >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 9:17 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > > I think that we could later automate at least the dry-run > > > execution > > > > of > > > > >> > the > > > > >> > script, along with Slack notification for highly-suspected > > > issues/PRs. > > > > >> > Then, it would be easier for maintainers to react fast when > > needed. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Yes. I would like to run it manually—ideally with several > > volunteer > > > > >> > maintainers - for a while to see how it works, improve and > > > > >> > iterate > > > and > > > > >> > possibly add more quality gates. When we have more confidence > > > > >> > we > > > could > > > > >> run > > > > >> > it automatically for some parts or even the whole process > > eventually > > > > >> > (especially for high-confidence/sensitive stuff), keeping the > > > > sensitive > > > > >> > parts with Human-In-The-Loop. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > But also (and this is my hope) - similarly to `breeze ci > > > > >> > upgrade` > > it > > > > >> might > > > > >> > turn out that the process is so efficient and "nice" to > > > > >> > follow > > that > > > we > > > > >> > could continue trigger it manually, regularly, perhaps with a > > > > rotational > > > > >> > maintainer handling the triage. I think comments and actions > > coming > > > > >> from a > > > > >> > human maintainer have more value than those from a bot—even > > > > >> > if the > > > > human > > > > >> > action is merely confirming what an automated system or LLM > > > proposed. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > J. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 10:04 AM Shahar Epstein > > > > >> > <[email protected] > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Amazing stuff Jarek! > > > > >> > > I think that we could later automate at least the dry-run > > > execution > > > > of > > > > >> > the > > > > >> > > script, along with Slack notification for highly-suspected > > > > issues/PRs. > > > > >> > > Then, it would be easier for maintainers to react fast when > > > needed. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Looking forward for new AI-based features in breeze in > > particular, > > > > and > > > > >> > > Airflow in general :) > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Shahar > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > On Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 04:59 Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Hello everyone, > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > While preparing for consensus on the assignment policy, I > > > created > > > > PR > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/625 > > 85__;!!Ci6f514n9QsL8ck!mS8qTovb9go2kfJwcUGGry6yWpOOcdvB2IXJYYHcOEam-B2 > > gTQQ_dcYm19lzIlgAKCiUragw0bHQEs-s$ > > > . > > > > This PR adds a new > > > > >> > command > > > > >> > > > to > > > > >> > > > Breeze, `breeze issues unassign`, which unassigns anyone > > > > >> > > > who > > is > > > > not > > > > >> a > > > > >> > > > committer or collaborator. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > I want this to be the first of several Breeze commands I > > > > >> > > > plan > > to > > > > >> add to > > > > >> > > > help manage the AI overhead and burden on maintainers. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > I got inspired bu Hugo van Kamerade's (my friend, Python > > release > > > > >> > manager) > > > > >> > > > tool > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://hugovk.dev/blog/2026/gh-triage/__; > > !!Ci6f514n9QsL8ck!mS8qTovb9go2kfJwcUGGry6yWpOOcdvB2IXJYYHcOEam-B2gTQQ_ > > dcYm19lzIlgAKCiUragw0TLnNyxs$ > > > . > > > > He added the `gh` > > > > >> > plugin > > > > >> > > > that helps him manage spam coming to Python. I hope we > > > > >> > > > can > > have > > > > very > > > > >> > > > similar set of commands and regular process of performing > > > cleanup > > > > >> with > > > > >> > > the > > > > >> > > > issues/prs we are getting. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > BTW. I am using Claude Code to add those commands (so > > > > >> > > > this is > > a > > > > bit > > > > >> > like > > > > >> > > > using AI to fight AI slop). But in a smart way. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > In our case we have `breeze` that we are already using > > > > >> > > > for `ci > > > > >> upgrade` > > > > >> > > by > > > > >> > > > maintainers and I see no reason why we could not use our > > > > >> > > > own > > CLI > > > > to > > > > >> > make > > > > >> > > us > > > > >> > > > far more efficient with assessing and quickly and > > > > >> > > > efficiently > > > > >> > processing > > > > >> > > > incoming spam. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Starting with AGENTS.md that describes what we expect > > > > >> > > > (and > > > > instructs > > > > >> > > agents > > > > >> > > > to make good PRs) and changing our assignment process - I > > think > > > we > > > > >> > should > > > > >> > > > proceed to implement step-by-step handling of the > > > > >> > > > incoming > > > > traffic: > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > a) Quickly assess how well PRs implement our > > > > >> > > > expectations, > > point > > > > out > > > > >> > > > problems, and close them > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > b) automatically telling the collaborators what is wrong > > > > >> > > > with > > > > their > > > > >> PRs > > > > >> > > if > > > > >> > > > they are incomplete (for example when tests are failing, > > > > >> > > > or > > when > > > > >> they > > > > >> > > need > > > > >> > > > a rebase) > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > c) automatically responding to issues that they are > > > > >> > > > incomplete > > > and > > > > >> need > > > > >> > > > more information > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > d) Allow filtering by area (so that maintainers focusing > > > > >> > > > on a > > > > >> > particular > > > > >> > > > area can periodically review only the areas they are > > > > >> > > > intereste > > > > >> > > > e) all that with some AI assistance (I plan to imlpement > > > > integration > > > > >> > with > > > > >> > > > some modern AI LLMs so that it is seamless for those > > maintainers > > > > who > > > > >> > > > already use some of those (including Cloud Code, GH > > > > >> > > > Copilot > > > > >> > (maintainers > > > > >> > > > can apply for free access there), Codex and any models > > > > >> > > > someone > > > > >> prefers > > > > >> > - > > > > >> > > > including local models). > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > f) all that with maintainer in the driver's seat—we won't > > > > >> > > > do > > > those > > > > >> > things > > > > >> > > > fully automatically - but we will get reviewable action > > proposal > > > > in > > > > >> > bulk > > > > >> > > > that the maintainer will be able to accept, modify or > reject. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > .... more... > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > All that will be open to contribution and I will be happy > > > > >> > > > to > > > > leading > > > > >> > > > introduction and disseminating those CLI options between > > > > >> maintainers to > > > > >> > > > make sure those get incorporated in our daily work - > > > > >> > > > relieving > > > > some > > > > >> of > > > > >> > > the > > > > >> > > > burden we are all experiencing and sharing it between > people. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > I think this is a viable approach to address our current > > burden > > > > >> > > > proactively, rather than waiting for others to act. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > This is also somewhat experimental since we haven't seen > > > > >> > > > it > > done > > > > >> > before, > > > > >> > > so > > > > >> > > > suggestions, comments, ideas and PRs that could help us > > > > >> > > > become > > > > more > > > > >> > > > efficient and better maintainers are most welcome. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Let me know what you think. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > J. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > Strike Technologies, LLC (“Strike”) is part of the GTS family of > companies. Strike is a technology solutions provider, and is not a broker > or dealer and does not transact any securities related business directly > whatsoever. This communication is the property of Strike and its > affiliates, and does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of > an offer to buy any security in any jurisdiction. It is intended only for > the person to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is > privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. > Distribution or copying of this communication, or the information contained > herein, by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you > have received this communication in error, please immediately notify Strike > at [email protected], and delete and destroy any copies hereof. > ________________________________ > > CONFIDENTIALITY / PRIVILEGE NOTICE: This transmission and any attachments > are intended solely for the addressee. This transmission is covered by the > Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C ''2510-2521. The > information contained in this transmission is confidential in nature and > protected from further use or disclosure under U.S. Pub. L. 106-102, 113 > U.S. Stat. 1338 (1999), and may be subject to attorney-client or other > legal privilege. Your use or disclosure of this information for any purpose > other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited, and may > subject you to fines and/or penalties under federal and state law. If you > are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please DESTROY ALL > COPIES RECEIVED and confirm destruction to the sender via return > transmittal. >
