As for large patches used to test new skills, I think the “CEP-38: CQL Management API” PR ( https://github.com/apache/cassandra/pull/4582 ) could be a good playground to validate the relevance and accuracy of the suggestions provided by the deep-review and patch-explainer skills.
(By the way, we still need a reviewer to move this patch forward.) I used patch-explainer to generate a description. This is what it looks like: https://github.com/Mmuzaf/cassandra/blob/cassandra-19476-bug-hunting/CASSANDRA-19476-PR-DESCRIPTION.md Thoughts, I think it would be useful to explicitly mention a strategy to split large patches into some reviewable parts, for example by logically separating them by component. There is already a “Skip or minimize” section, but it does not mention breaking large patches into blocks (if it's possible). The skill currently does not mention trade-offs, although during implementation I constantly kept them in mind and even tracked them separately in my notes for each critical section. For example, what is actually preferable: issuing a direct command QUERY request or invoking pre-registered prepared statements? I also experimented with Mermaid diagrams (1) instead of ASCII diagrams. This is how they could look (2) and looks better than the text, although I noticed they tend to be less accurate. I also tested deep-review, and although I had already used Claude to review my changes, it still highlighted several issues that need to be fixed: https://github.com/Mmuzaf/cassandra/blob/cassandra-19476-bug-hunting/CEP-38_DEEP_REVIEW.md Overall, I think it’s good. Could you share any deficiencies you’ve spotted, Alex? [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mermaid_(Software) [2] https://github.com/Mmuzaf/cassandra/blob/cassandra-19476-bug-hunting/CASSANDRA-19476-PR-DESCRIPTION-MERMAID.md On Fri, 15 May 2026 at 09:18, Alex Petrov <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have spotted some deficiencies, particularly when reviewing large patches. > I have an experiment running that might improve the situation. I’ll report as > soon I have a result. > > On Thu, May 14, 2026, at 12:31 PM, Štefan Miklošovič wrote: > > I just merged (1) and created (2) for tracking the patch of Alex. (1) and (2) > don't collide. > > It would be cool to include this (2) in upcoming weeks, let's just live with > what Alex provided for a while to evaluate that set of skills. If the general > vibe is OK I would approach the merge. Let's give it what ... few weeks? > Until the end of the month at least. > > (1) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-21301 > (2) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-21373 > > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 3:21 PM Štefan Miklošovič <[email protected]> > wrote: > > BTW I really appreciate TLA+ machinery in that patch, I let it scan > compression dictionaries code and how we disperse notifications around the > cluster when a dict is trained etc. and it spit out stuff like this. There is > an IDEA plugin for TLA+ I ran it in and it just worked and verified :) I can > imagine these specs might be theoretically something we commit into the repo > as well when applicable. That way we would at least conceptually codify the > protocols and could elaborate on them on a high level and run some formal > verifications etc ... Really appreciate this aspect of it. > > (1) https://gist.github.com/smiklosovic/24b4db51f9ee2b64d76cb0bbb104e29a > > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 11:31 AM C. Scott Andreas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Alex - thanks so much for putting this together and sharing. > > Here are three additional data loss / corruption bugs identified by Arjun > Ashok using this set of skills last week: > > – https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-21356: > CursorBasedCompaction: ReusableLivenessInfo.isExpiring() incorrectly returns > true for tombstone cells, corrupting cursor-compacted SSTable format and cell > reconciliation > – https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-21357: > CursorBasedCompaction: prevUnfilteredSize always written as 0 in > SSTableCursorWriter > – https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-21358: > CursorBasedCompaction: Final index block width off by one byte in > SSTableCursorWriter#appendBIGIndex() > > Stepping back a bit -- > > This set of skills combined with the Opus model have enabled folks to find 14 > data loss, corruption, and correctness bugs in the project in the past ~two > weeks. These are bugs that likely would have gone undetected - and if > encountered in the wild, would have required extensive manual fuzz testing to > reproduce and identify. > > In the case of the the issue that I'd found and reported: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-21340: GROUP BY queries > silently return incomplete results due to premature SRP abort > > I found this by invoking the skill with the prompt "Review Cassandra's > implementation of GROUP BY for correctness. Identify edge cases that might > result in incorrect responses. After identifying candidate bugs, fan out > subagents to write unit tests and fuzz tests attempting to reproduce them. > Assess their veracity, and present them in order of concern." > > In less than 30 minutes while sitting on the sofa, the model and skill > identified CASSANDRA-21340. In another hour, I was able to establish its > veracity, then leave the model and prompt behind to work through the issue > and write up the Jira ticket by hand. > > I'm *really* impressed by what this set of skills enable, and I think they > may be transformative for quality in Apache Cassandra – especially when > combined with the ability to write in-JVM dtests; Harry tests; and to use the > Simulator. These also make it a lot easier to use each of these tools. > > Here's how I'm thinking about this work so far: > > – The ensemble review skills are a great first-pass review that can be used > by anyone preparing a patch to identify potential issues. > – They're incredible for pointing at existing and/or new + experimental > components in Cassandra to find serious correctness issues. > – I'm sure we'd find latent issues if we directed the skills at interaction > between multiple components, like "range tombstones x short read protection x > reverse reads x compact storage" (etc). > – I think these skills could be generalized to support bug-finding and > validation in other Apache projects. > – I also think there is a generalization of these skills that could be > applied to CPU + allocation profiling and optimization. > > For those who have access to a suitable model, I'd love to hear your > experience attempting to find a latent bug in the database. > > I was shocked how easy it was, and am hopeful for what this might do for > quality and data integrity in the project. > > – Scott > > On May 8, 2026, at 5:22 PM, Alex Petrov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I would recommend Opus 4.6+ for /deep-review, but /shallow-review is probably > fine with sonnet. > > Maybe time permitting, I can do evals for different models at some point. > > Review process is always a bottleneck and introducing such skills should help > to make it faster and more reliable. > > This is hope here, but this is also just a start: we need to reduce > false-positives, and do more with specifications (P, TLA+) for critical parts > of code. > > On Fri, May 8, 2026, at 5:56 PM, Dmitry Konstantinov wrote: > > Hi, Alex, thank you a lot for sharing it. I have been using Claude code for > review of my changes but in a very basic ad-hoc way, it works for simple > issues. The skills look much much more powerful. I am going to read and try > them in the upcoming weeks. > Review process is always a bottleneck and introducing such skills should help > to make it faster and more reliable. > > A question: what model(s) do you use to run them? Is Sonet 4.6 enough? > > Thanks, > Dmitry > > On Fri, 8 May 2026 at 14:03, Alex Petrov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello folks, > > We have been working on some tooling [1] around Apache Cassandra correctness, > and wanted to share it with Cassandra community. > > We have approached this by "indexing" ~3k Cassandra issues and extracting > common patterns from them, generalizing them, then running evals, tweaking, > and extending them until we were had a strong signal that it performs better > than the run-of-the mill code review skill. We have benchmarked it against > some popular OSS skills (by presenting bugs we knew existed from "indexing" > Apache Kafka, inferring commit bug source from the fix, and making sure > benchmarked skills actually find it). > > In addition, I did my best to codify some things I knew about correctness, > researching code, and writing repros, and what I could find in research > papers and public blog posts. > > So far we were able to find (at very least) following issues (in reality the > number is higher but I have a backlog of potential leads to investigate and > reproduce longer than the time I have available for these pursuits). > > deep review + fuzzer: > > CASSANDRA-21307: Lower bound [SSTABLE_UPPER_BOUND(row000063)] is bigger than > first returned value > CASSANDRA-21292: Row re-inserted at the exact start of a range tombstone > disappears after major compaction > CASSANDRA-21255: Differentiate between legitimate cases where the first entry > is the same as the last entry and empty bounds in > SSTableCursorWriter#addIndexBlock() > > shallow + deep review: > > (latent) issue of unused keepFrom in linearSubtract > https://github.com/apache/cassandra-accord/pull/272 > CASSANDRA-21336: CursorBasedCompaction: trailing present columns are silently > dropped in encodeLargeColumnsSubset() > CASSANDRA-21340: GROUP BY queries silently return incomplete results due to > premature SRP abort > CASSANDRA-21352 TCM: AtomicLongBackedProcessor sort inversion > CASSANDRA-21353 putShortVolatile is not volatile in InMemoryTrie > > Via specifications: > > CASSANDRA-21337: Difference in behavior between Cursor-Based compaction and > "Regular" compaction > CASSANDRA-21336: CursorBasedCompaction: trailing present columns are silently > dropped in encodeLargeColumnsSubset() > CASSANDRA-21339: CursorBasedCompaction: expiring cells, same timestamp, same > ldt, different ttl > CASSANDRA-21338: value comparison direction reversed in CursorCompactor > > A few folks were using this skill to test some of subsystems, and might > report more issues that I am not directly attributing here. I have also used > these skills for self-review and have caught a couple of issues before they > made it into the codebase. > > Despite some early success, I still consider this a very raw set of prompts, > but I think this has utility, and based on the success we have seen so far, > can be helpful and is (according to my measurement methodology) fairing > better than one-shot code review prompts that an LLM would generate by user > request. > > Since I was focusing on finding issues, running evals, and trying several > other methodologies that did not make into this version/cut, I did not have a > chance to sit and re-read the entire final result just yet, which is why I am > not suggesting merging this into Cassandra codebase until we better vet it, > but with your help and feedback maybe we can do this quicker. > > Hope you find this useful, please share your opinion, experience, and > criticism. > > Happy bug hunting! > --Alex > > [1] https://github.com/apache/cassandra/pull/4794 > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2026, at 1:12 PM, Štefan Miklošovič wrote: > > I noticed this PR just landed. > > Volunteers reviewing / improving greatly appreciated! > > (1) https://github.com/apache/cassandra/pull/4734 > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 5:43 PM Jon Haddad <[email protected]> wrote: > > I wanted to share a couple of other things I thought of. I wrote this: > > > C*'s technical debt will make using an agent in the codebase much harder > > than using one in my own > > I want to clarify my intent with this statement. I was trying to convey that > I've had the luxury of refactoring my code several times, because I don't > have to worry about messing with other people's branches. I usually write > something, use it briefly, find its faults, redo it, and iterate several > times. I never consider anything done and am always looking to improve. This > is very difficult with a project involving many people who have in-flight > branches spanning several months. Changes I consider no-brainers might be a > headache for C*. For example, I can just add a code formatter and rewrite > every file in the codebase. I make major changes regularly without any > consequences. Here, it impacts dozens of people. I proactively improve my > code's architecture because there are few, if any, negative reasons not to. > It's enabled me to pay off a ton of technical debt that accumulated over the > eight years I handwrote everything. > > Another example: I've been working on an orchestration tool around > easy-db-lab to automate running my tests across several clusters in parallel. > I recently refactored it to split the REST server code from the execution > into Gradle submodules. Now I can create different agents specializing in > each module's content, which slims down the context for each agent. Since I > have a very clear boundary on each agent's responsibility, I avoid the > overhead of having one agent manage one huge codebase. I can specifically > tell that one agent is responsible for this directory, and its expertise is > in Ktor. Another agent is a Gradle expert. Another is Kubernetes. When I > work on tasks they can be decomposed into task lists for each specialized > agent. > > I've always thought this would be a great architectural improvement for the > C* codebase regardless of LLMs. For example, putting the CQL parser in a > standalone module would allow us to publish it so people could consume it in > their own ecosystem without pulling in C*-all. Isolating a few of these > subsystems could reduce cognitive overhead and simplify test design. I'm > sure making the commit log reader standalone would make it much easier to use > in the sidecar. Easily using the SSTable readers and writers without all the > other dependencies would reduce workarounds in bulk analytics and make these > types of projects more feasible, benefiting the wider ecosystem. > > Regardless of this approach, creating a devcontainer environment for the > project and pushing the image to GHCR would also be beneficial. I am now > using one with each of my tools. I don't trust Claude not to wipe my system, > so I sandbox it in a container. It only has access to the local project and > cannot push code or reach GitHub. Devcontainers are supported directly in > IDEA, Zed, and VSCode. You can also launch them directly from GitHub or use > the Claude mobile app. I haven't spent much time on this yet though, I still > prefer two big 5k screens and a deafening mechanical keyboard. > > Jon > > [1] > https://github.com/rustyrazorblade/easy-db-lab/blob/main/.devcontainer/devcontainer.json > [2] > https://github.com/rustyrazorblade/easy-db-lab/blob/main/.devcontainer/Dockerfile > > > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 12:58 AM Štefan Miklošovič <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Thank you Jon for sharing,that was very helpful. All these insights are > invaluable. > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 11:50 PM Jon Haddad <[email protected]> wrote: > > Regarding ant, we'd probably want a wrapper shell script that is more > LLM-friendly, hiding the excessive text and providing more actionable output. > You can also delegate any task to a subagent so you don't waste your context > on the `ant` output, and use Claude's new Agent Teams [1] feature to have a > "builder" agent run in its own process. > Docs help Claude find code, big time. You can give it your organizational > structure and that institutional knowledge so it doesn't have to pull in many > tokens from dozens of files. It *definitely* works. I've pushed over a > quarter million LOC this month alone [1], and many of you may already know > I'm obsessed with efficiency. I constantly test new ideas and approaches to > refine my process; I've found good documentation is *critical*. > > I've recently started working with both Spec-Kit (Microsoft, but it looks > abandoned) and OpenSpec, as both are designed to maintain long-term memory > for a project's product requirements and technical decisions. OpenSpec is > supposed to work better for brownfield and iterative projects. I haven't > tried BMAD yet. It seemed a bit more heavyweight, but it may be better for > this project than my personal ones, where I don't collaborate with anyone. > > I have found that the best results come from loosely coupled systems. C*'s > technical debt will make using an agent in the codebase much harder than > using one in my own. I haven't tried to work on a patch in C* yet with an > agent, but when I do I'll be sure to share what I've learned. > > Today I introduced OpenSpec to easy-db-lab, you can see what it looks like > [3] if you're curious. A number of markdown commands were added to the repo, > and Spec-Kit was removed. I haven't reviewed it yet. By the time you read > this I will have likely made some changes in a review. If you want to see the > before and after, the pre-review commit is c6a94e1. > > Jon > > [1] https://code.claude.com/docs/en/agent-teams > [2] my 2 main projects, not including client work: > git log --since="$(date +%Y-%m-01)" --numstat --pretty=tformat: | awk 'NF==3 > {added+=$1; removed+=$2} END {print "Added:", added, "Removed:", removed}' > Added: 90339 Removed: 45222 > > git log --since="$(date +%Y-%m-01)" --numstat --pretty=tformat: | awk 'NF==3 > {added+=$1; removed+=$2} END {print "Added:", added, "Removed:", removed}' > Added: 124863 Removed: 52923 > > > [3] https://github.com/rustyrazorblade/easy-db-lab/pull/530/changes > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 6:18 AM David Capwell <[email protected]> wrote: > > I’m not against memory / skills being added, but do want to request we think > / test to make sure we can quantify the gains > > <arxiv-logo-fb.png> > Evaluating AGENTS.md: Are Repository-Level Context Files Helpful for Coding > Agents? > arxiv.org > > <arxiv-logo-fb.png> > SkillsBench: Benchmarking How Well Agent Skills Work Across Diverse Tasks > arxiv.org > > > These papers actually match my lived experience with this projects and others. > > 1) using /init to create CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md yields negative results. This > is how I started and have moved away. What is the context you need 100% of > the thing? It’s things that Claude can’t discover easy such as tribal > knowledge (such as link to our style guide). > 2) Ant is horrible for agents, not to figure out what to do (Claude is good > at that) but at context bloat… do “ant jar” and you add like 10-20k tokens… > you MUST have tooling to fix this (I ban Claude from touching ant command, > it’s only allowed to run “ai-build”, and “ai-ci-test” as these fix the > context problems; rtk “might” work here, not tested as in on leave) > 3) Claude doesn’t need docs to find code, that actually confuses it more. > When it needs to modify code it’s going to have to explore and will most > likely find what it needs. I agree docs for humans would help, but let’s > keep it out of AI memory files. > 4) I only really use sonnet/opus 4.5+, these claims might not be true for > older models or the open weight models. > > As for skills, the following makes sense to me but I really hope a human > writes as AI doesn’t do well at understanding the WHY well and makes bad > assumptions: property testing, stateful property testing, harry, The > Simulator. I left out cqltester because I found Claude doesn’t suck at it, > so not sure what a skill would add. The others I found it struggles with and > produces bad quality tests. > > Last comment: Stefan, your link about ai code in the project didn’t take into > account what happened in the PR. Our global static state world caused a > single test to fail which required a complete rewrite of the patch that I > ended up doing by hand. So that patch ended up being 100% human. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 18, 2026, at 6:29 PM, Štefan Miklošovič <[email protected]> wrote: > > These are great points. I like how granular the approach of having > multiple files is. That means we do not need to craft one > "uber-claude.md" but we can do this iteratively and per specific > domain which is easier to handle. > > One consequence of having these "context files" is that a contributor > does not even need to use any AI whatsoever in order to be more > productive and organized. There is a lot of time lost when a new > contributor wants to understand how the project "thinks", what are > do-s and dont-s etc. All stuff which appears once a patch is > submitted. If we explained to everybody in plain English how this all > works on a detailed level, per domain, that would be tremendously > helpful even without AI. > > It will be interesting to watch how these files are written. To > formalize and write it down is quite a task on its own. > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2026 at 6:47 PM Patrick McFadin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Context size is the hardest thing to manage right now in agentic coding. I’ve > stopped using MCP and switched to skills as a result. > > > A couple of things worth noting. You can use many multiple CLAUDE.md/AGENT.md > files in a large code base. I’m started doing this and it is remarkable. For > example, in the pylib directory a CLAUDE.md file would provide the Python > specific info if making changes. The standard layout for each should be > > - What is this > > - Where do I get more information > > - How do I run or test > > - What are the non-nogetialble rules > > - What does done look like > > > Imagine one in all sorts of places. fqtool, sstableloader, o.a.c.io.*, > o.a.c.repair.* etc etc. And they can evolve over time as people use them. > > > The other thing to bring up is Brokk built by Jonathan Ellis. He specifically > built it for large code bases and specifically tests on the Cassandra code > base. (I’ll let him jump in here) > > > Patrick > > > On Feb 18, 2026, at 8:51 AM, Josh McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I’ve had trouble using Claude effectively on C*’s large codebase without a > lot of repeated “repo discovery” prompting. > > > Just to keep beating the drum: I've had trouble working in our codebase > effectively without a lot of repeated "repo discovery" time. In fact, a huge > portion of the time I spend working on the codebase consists of reading into > adjacent coupled classes and modules since things are a) not consistently or > thoroughly documented, and b) generally not that decoupled. > > > This is also / primarily a "human <-> information interfacing efficiency > problem" and it just so happens LLM's and agents being blocked from working > on our codebase is giving us an immediate short-term pain-proxy for something > I strongly believe has been a long-term tax on us. > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2026, at 10:04 AM, Isaac Reath wrote: > > > I'm a +1 for the same reason that Josh lays out. Markdown files that detail > the structure of the repo, how to build & run tests, how to get checkstyle to > pass, etc. are all very valuable to new contributors even if LLMs went away > today. > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 7:33 PM Jon Haddad <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It's all part of the same topic, Yifan. You're making a distinction without > a difference. We could just as easily be discussing supporting certain MCP > servers like serena, or baking claude into a devcontainer. It's all > relevant. There's no need to police the discussion. > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 4:25 PM Yifan Cai <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The original post was about adding AI tooling, prompt, command, or skill. The > thread is shifted to AI memory files. > > > I do not have an objection to any of these, but want to make sure that we are > still on the original topic. > > > IMO, AI tooling has a clear scope / definition and is easier to reach > consensus on. Meanwhile, AI memory files are vague to define clearly. > Different developers on different domains could have quite different > preferences. > > > - Yifan > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 3:37 PM Dmitry Konstantinov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I do not have my one but here there are few examples from oher Apache > projects: > > https://github.com/apache/camel/blob/main/AGENTS.md > > https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/blob/main/CLAUDE.md > > https://github.com/apache/superset/blob/master/superset/mcp_service/CLAUDE.md > > > On Tue, 17 Feb 2026 at 23:22, Jon Haddad <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think a few folks are already using CLAUDE.md files in their repo and > they're just not committing them. > > Anyone want to share what's already done? I'm happy to help share what I > know about the agentic side of things, but since I don't do much in the way > of patching C* it would be a lot of guessing. > > > If I'm wrong and nobody shares one, I'll take a stab at it. > > > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 3:08 PM Štefan Miklošovič <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Great feedback everybody! Really appreciate it! > > > Reading what Jon posted ... Jon, I think you are the most experienced > > in this based on what you wrote. Would you mind doing some POC here > > for Cassandra repo? For the trunk it is enough ... Something we might > > build further on. I think we need to build the foundations of that and > > put some structure into it and all things considered I think you are > > best for the job here. > > > If the basics are there we can play with it more before merging, this > > is not something which needs to be done "tomorrow", we can collaborate > > on something together for some time and add things into it as patches > > come. I think it takes some time to "tune" it. > > > Everybody else feel free to help! My experience in this space is > > limited, I think there are people who are using it more often than me > > for sure. > > > Regards > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2026 at 12:59 AM Joel Shepherd <[email protected]> wrote: > > > There's been some momentum building for AGENTS.md files, both on the > > project and on the agent side: > > > https://agents.md/ > > > Same idea and benefits, but it might help to align folks on a "standard" > > that will work well across agents. > > > I also think that more and better code documentation can be very > > beneficial when using agents to help with working out implementation > > details. I spent a bunch of time in January writing an introduction to > > Apache Ratis (Raft as a library: > > https://github.com/apache/ratis/blob/master/ratis-docs/src/site/markdown/index.md). > > The code itself is pretty well-documented but it was hard for me to > > build a mental model of how to integrate with. AI was very effective in > > taking the granular in-code documentation and synthesizing an overview > > from it. Going the other way, the in-code documentation has made it > > possible for me to deep dive the Ratis code to root cause bugs, etc. > > Agents can get a lot out of good class- and method-level documentation. > > > -- Joel. > > > On 2/16/2026 8:03 PM, Bernardo Botella wrote: > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click > links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the > content is safe. > > > > > 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 > > > > > -- > > Dmitry Konstantinov > > > > > > > > -- > Dmitry Konstantinov > > > >
