Isn't that simply the same as our instruction in AGENTS.md "tell us you are agent and what agent you are" - just hidden?
Also I am not sure if it will have any effect, because our PR template is **not** used by agents at all - because we told the agents not to use it. As instructed in our Agents in https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/AGENTS.md#creating-pull-requests Those are our current instructions for the agents. 1) The instructions do not use our template - but copy it verbatim in AGENTS.md 2) We already ask the agents to "introduce" themselves. What is the difference compared to the comment instructions? J. ------ Then push the branch to your fork (origin) and open the PR creation page in the browser with the body pre-filled (including the generative AI disclosure already checked): git push -u origin <branch-name> gh pr create --web --title "Short title (under 70 chars)" --body "$(cat <<'EOF' Brief description of the changes. closes: #ISSUE (if applicable) --- ##### Was generative AI tooling used to co-author this PR? - [X] Yes — <Agent Name and Version> Generated-by: <Agent Name and Version> following [the guidelines]( https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/contributing-docs/05_pull_requests.rst#gen-ai-assisted-contributions ) EOF )" On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 3:08 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I’d like to start a discussion point that I put on the agenda for the Dev > Call last Thursday but we ran out of time. > > I don’t think we should be letting agents open PRs, and we should update > our policies to forbid it. > > First off, two things. 1) This is not about agents or LLM generated code, > just about the act of opening a PR. and 2) We can’t “forbid” it in any real > sense, but we can very much make this a brown m&m test[1], and that can > feed into a signal to issue triage. > > Why do I think this is a problem? It means that the likelyhood of the > actor behind it following the rest of the instructions is greatly reduced - > and with the up-tick in volume it serves as a useful pre-filter of there > being a motivated human behind the change. > > I have noticed a number of PRs I’ve reviewed where I don’t think any human > has actually looked at the change, and frankly: I’m bored of wasting my > time on drive-by AI slop. I am firmly in the camp that Humans need to own > their change, and the person opening the PR should have at least looked at > all the code > > One example way we can achieve this would be something like this > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/68013 > > [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Halen_test > > -ash > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
