Thanks for bringing this up Stefan!! A really interesting topic indeed.
I’ve also heard ideas around even having Claude.md type of files that help LLMs understand the code base without having to do a full scan every time. So, all and all, putting together something that we as a community think that describe good practices + repository information not only for the main Cassandra repository, but also for its subprojects, will definitely help contributors adhere to standards and us reviewers to ensure that some steps at least will have been considered. Things like: - Repository structure. What every folder is - Tests suits and how they work and run - Git commits standards - Specific project lint rules (like braces in new lines!) - Preferred wording style for patches/documentation Committed to the projects, and accesible to LLMs, sound like really useful context for those type of contributions (that are going to keep happening regardless). So curious to read what others think. Bernardo PD. Totally agree that this should change nothing of the quality bar for code reviews and merged code > On Feb 16, 2026, at 6:27 PM, Štefan Miklošovič <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey, > > This happened recently in kernel space. (1), (2). > > What that is doing, as I understand it, is that you can point LLM to > these resources and then it would be more capable when reviewing > patches or even writing them. It is kind of a guide / context provided > to AI prompt. > > I can imagine we would just compile something similar, merge it to the > repo, then if somebody is prompting it then they would have an easier > job etc etc, less error prone ... adhered to code style etc ... > > This might look like a controversial topic but I think we need to > discuss this. The usage of AI is just more and more frequent. From > Cassandra's perspective there is just this (3) but I do not think we > reached any conclusions there (please correct me if I am wrong where > we are at with AI generated patches). > > This is becoming an elephant in the room, I am noticing that some > patches for Cassandra were prompted by AI completely. I think it would > be way better if we make it easy for everybody contributing like that. > > This does not mean that we, as committers, would believe what AI > generated blindlessly. Not at all. It would still need to go over the > formal review as anything else. But acting like this is not happening > and people are just not going to use AI when trying to contribute is > not right. We should embrace it in some form ... > > 1) https://github.com/masoncl/review-prompts > 2) https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/ > 3) https://lists.apache.org/thread/j90jn83oz9gy88g08yzv3rgyy0vdqrv7
