> 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 just got added to the programme and they even returned back the remaining money from this month subscription on my credit card .. J. On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 5:52 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. >> >
