weiqingy opened a new pull request, #1073: URL: https://github.com/apache/flink-agents/pull/1073
<!-- * Thank you very much for contributing to Flink Agents. * Please add the relevant components in the PR title. E.g., [api], [runtime], [java], [python], [hotfix], etc. --> <!-- Please link the PR to the relevant issue(s). Hotfix doesn't need this. --> Linked issue: #894 ### Purpose of change A pull request whose implementation is largely AI-assisted gives its reviewer a diff and a summary, and the reviewer then rebuilds the runtime flow, the behavioral contracts and the failure paths from the diff. The tooling that produced the change had all of that and threw it away. Nothing in the repository says a contributor should write it down, what it should cover, or where it goes. This adds `contribution-guides/ai-assisted-pr.md`, which says when the format applies, the two-stage review it feeds, how its seven fields fold into the existing pull request template, which detail belongs in a collapsed block, and what not to write. `AGENTS.md` and the pull request template point at it. Two notes on scope. The guide describes what each review stage is accountable for and deliberately ships no reviewer-side agent prompt. And it names no line count anywhere: runtime flow varies in depth rather than in presence, and the two linked examples carry the calibration instead of a number. One open point worth a second opinion. The guide treats runtime flow as always present with its depth scaling, rather than as a field that switches on above some size. A threshold would need either a number, which the samples do not support, or a qualifier a contributor cannot evaluate. If the conditional shape is preferred, it is a one-clause change. This is an initial version and the guide says so. It is meant to be refined as more examples accumulate. ### Implementation Description Not applicable. This change's diff is prose, and the format the guide defines is built around runtime flow, behavioral contracts and failure behavior, none of which a documentation change has. The guide states that exclusion, so applying the format here would break its own rule. ### Tests No code changes, so no unit tests. `./tools/build.sh` and `./tools/ut.sh` read none of the four files. `./tools/check-license.sh` was run twice by design. Without the `tools/.rat-excludes` entry it exits 1, reporting one unknown license against the new file. With the entry it exits 0, classifying 967 files as Standards and 967 as Apache Licensed with zero unknown licenses. The first run is what shows the entry is necessary rather than copied from the neighbouring rule. Every repository-relative path and both linked pull request URLs were resolved by hand, case-exactly. No link checker runs in CI, so a wrong path would not otherwise be caught. ### API No public API change. Four files: one new guide, a pointer section in `AGENTS.md`, one new heading in `.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md`, and one line in `tools/.rat-excludes`. The template heading is additive and optional. An author who leaves it empty is unaffected, and the section's comment says to leave it empty for a change whose diff is already prose. `AGENTS.md` also gains its first reference to `.github/CONTRIBUTING.md`, which it had never pointed at. ### Documentation <!-- Do not remove this section. Check the proper box only. --> - [ ] `doc-needed` <!-- Your PR changes impact docs --> - [ ] `doc-not-needed` <!-- Your PR changes do not impact docs --> - [x] `doc-included` <!-- Your PR already contains the necessary documentation updates --> ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? <!-- Do not remove this section. Check the proper box only. --> - [x] Yes - [ ] No Generated-by: Claude Code 2.1.251 (Claude Opus 5) -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
