Repository navigation
docs: track the contributing guide and AI policy - #238
Conversation
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: bc3c4cb7ed
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
bc3c4cb to
9af48b7
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 9af48b7c7b
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@claude fix this PR |
9af48b7 to
fbfc4c0
Compare
|
Pushed P1, retain Bitcoin Core's copyright notice. Agreed and fixed. An Attribution section now names the source file, Link to the tracked AI policy. Agreed. The link now points at Replace Bitcoin Core-only contributor references. Agreed, and pruned more widely than the thread asks. Gone: Send policy feedback to this project's tracker. Agreed. It now says this repository's issue tracker, and the Protect remote updates during force-push. Agreed. The squash workflow now uses Fetch and rebase the project target branch. Agreed. Attribute this commit to its human contributor — disagree, this does not apply. The claim is that the commit Both author and committer are the human contributor, and there is no agent trailer in the message. The policy this |
|
Triage: most prior review feedback is fixed, including the AI-policy link, upstream attribution, safer force-push/rebase guidance, and human commit authorship. Two small cleanup items remain before human review: add the concise developer-notes file explicitly requested in review, and remove/replace the stale |
676b3ed to
9d5066b
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 9d5066b37d
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
BenWestgate
left a comment
BenWestgate
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
AI-generated review (Claude), posted at the maintainer's request.
Concept ACK 9d5066b. Two open items:
upstreamis never defined (Codex P2 on L152; the@clauderequest didn't trigger anything). Addgit remote add upstream https://github.com/BenWestgate/Bails.gitto the fork setup, or fetch that URL directly.- AI policy: the maintainer comment on L26 asked that agents confirm a human chose the work, understands it and is responsible before opening a PR. The text states the human requirement, but not that agent-side check. One line would cover it.
- The policy bars AI-generated comments, yet the repo gets disclosed, maintainer-requested AI reviews (Codex, this one). Consider an explicit exception for those.
Authorship on both commits is now human, the Bitcoin Core notice is kept, and --force-with-lease is used. Good.
BenWestgate
left a comment
BenWestgate
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
AI-generated review, posted at the maintainer's request.
ACK 3ed6dcb. The last open contributor-workflow issue is fixed: upstream is now defined before use. Lint CI and dependency review are green. Ready for human review.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 3ed6dcb4a8
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
BenWestgate
left a comment
BenWestgate
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
AI-generated review, posted at the maintainer's request.
ACK 652721e. The final delta explicitly requires human sponsorship before an agent opens a PR. Lint CI and dependency review are green. Ready for human review.
652721e to
8ebb5e4
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
31bfa4d to
4e602bb
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
BenWestgate
left a comment
BenWestgate
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Codex current-head review at 4e602bb: no findings. The remaining cleanup feedback is addressed: docs/developer-notes.md now exists with Bails-specific shell/testing guidance, and the contributor attribution/license text no longer references stale Debian packaging material.
CONTRIBUTING.md has been an empty placeholder, and the AI policy existed only as an untracked file in a working tree, so neither was visible to anyone cloning the repository. Both describe how contributions are expected to arrive, which is of no use while they are unreadable. The contributing guide covers the fork-and-pull-request workflow, atomic commits, commit message form, and the ACK/NACK review vocabulary. The AI policy states that contributors must understand what they submit, that pull requests should not be opened or driven by autonomous agents, and that agents are not to be listed as commit authors or co-authors.
Two coding-convention references were rewritten to "match the style of the surrounding shell scripts" because docs/developer-notes.md did not exist when the guide was pruned. It does now, with a Shell code section covering exactly this, so both point at it instead.
4e602bb to
0f27e23
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
BenWestgate
left a comment
BenWestgate
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Codex current-head review at 0f27e23: no findings. The only delta since the prior clean review adds the requested explicit agent-side human-sponsorship check before opening a PR; it is consistent with the surrounding AI policy.
BenWestgate
left a comment
BenWestgate
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wonderful documents, thanks for your contribution.
1 participant
CONTRIBUTING.mdis an empty placeholder on master, so the repository does not currently ship usable contribution guidance. This PR makes the project’s contributor expectations explicit and tracked.CONTRIBUTING.md: contributor workflow, focused/atomic changes, commit-message guidance, rebasing, ACK/NACK review vocabulary, and review expectations.docs/developer-notes.md: concise Bails-specific notes on scope, shell conventions, persistence, repository layout, testing, and reviewability.docs/AI_POLICY.md: contributors must understand and take responsibility for work produced with AI assistance; agents are not authors or co-authors.The guide has been pruned to Bails rather than copying Bitcoin Core-only processes. Its upstream Bitcoin Core attribution is preserved, the AI-policy and developer-notes links resolve inside this repository, the rebase/force-push examples avoid clobbering remote work, and policy feedback points to the Bails tracker.
Testing:
git diff --check; documentation links and repository paths reviewed against the branch.