chrisryn/requestarr
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions 2 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

chore: add PR validation workflow and update contributing guidelines (#2777)

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
fallenbagel
2026-04-02 13:59:51 +08:00
committed by GitHub
parent 1bb638e175
commit 772e83d104
4 changed files with 456 additions and 48 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

101
CONTRIBUTING.md
View File

@@ -10,43 +10,104 @@ All help is welcome and greatly appreciated! If you would like to contribute to
> This is an open-source project maintained by volunteers.
> We do not have the resources to review pull requests that could have been avoided with proper human oversight.
> While we have no issue with contributors using AI tools as an aid, it is your responsibility as a contributor to ensure that all submissions are carefully reviewed and meet our quality standards.
> Submissions that appear to be unreviewed AI output will be considered low-effort and may result in a ban.
>
> If you are using **any kind of AI assistance** to contribute to Seerr,
> it must be disclosed in the pull request.
> **We expect AI-assisted development, not AI-driven development.**
> Use AI as a tool to help you write code. Do not let an AI agent
> autonomously generate an entire contribution and submit it on your behalf.
> We have been increasingly receiving low-effort, fully AI-generated PRs
> and will not tolerate them. Contributors who repeatedly submit unreviewed
> AI output may result in a ban.
>
> **Submissions that appear to be unreviewed AI output will be considered low-effort and may result in a ban.** Signs of unreviewed AI output include but are not limited to:
>
> - Blank or template-default PR descriptions
> - AI-generated PR descriptions that replace our template with their own structure (e.g., "Summary / What changed / Root cause / Test plan" instead of following the PR template; this is the default output format of tools like Claude Code and is an immediate indicator that the PR was not reviewed by a human)
> - Unchecked checklists or missing checklist entirely
> - Failing CI checks that would have been caught by running `pnpm build`
> - Code that does not match the described changes
> - Inability to answer questions about the submitted code
>
> **Read and follow the [Contributing Guide](CONTRIBUTING.md) before submitting.**
> If your AI tool generates its own PR description format, it is your
> responsibility to rewrite it to follow our template before submitting.
> An incomplete PR template tells maintainers that insufficient review has
> been performed on the submission, regardless of the actual code quality.
> We may close such PRs without review.
>
> If you are using **any kind of AI assistance** to contribute to Seerr, it must be disclosed in the pull request.
### Disclosure Requirements
If you are using any kind of AI assistance while contributing to Seerr,
**this must be disclosed in the pull request**, along with the extent to
which AI assistance was used (e.g. docs only vs. code generation).
If PR responses are being generated by an AI, disclose that as well.
**this must be disclosed in the pull request description**, along with
the extent to which AI assistance was used (e.g., docs only vs. code generation).
If PR responses (comments, review replies) are being generated by AI,
disclose that as well.
As a small exception, trivial tab-completion doesn't need to be disclosed,
so long as it is limited to single keywords or short phrases.
An example disclosure:
Example disclosures:
> This PR was written primarily by Claude Code.
Or a more detailed disclosure:
> I consulted ChatGPT to understand the codebase but the solution
> **AI Disclosure:** This PR was written primarily by Claude Code.
> **AI Disclosure:** I consulted ChatGPT to understand the codebase but the solution
> was fully authored manually by myself.
> **AI Disclosure:** None.
Failure to disclose this is first and foremost rude to the human operators
on the other end of the pull request, but it also makes it difficult to
determine how much scrutiny to apply to the contribution.
When using AI assistance, we expect contributors to:
- **Understand the code** that is produced and be able to answer
questions about it.
- **Follow the contributing guide**. AI tools do not excuse you from
filling out the PR template, testing section, and checklist.
- **Run the build and tests** before submitting.
Failure to disclose AI assistance is first and foremost disrespectful to the
human maintainers on the other end of the pull request, but it also makes it
difficult to determine how much scrutiny to apply to the contribution.
In a perfect world, AI assistance would produce equal or higher quality
work than any human. That isn't the world we live in today, and in most cases
it's generating slop. I say this despite being a fan of and using them
successfully myself (with heavy supervision)!
work than any human. That is not the world we live in today, and in most cases
it is generating slop.
When using AI assistance, we expect contributors to understand the code
that is produced and be able to answer critical questions about it. It
isn't a maintainers job to review a PR so broken that it requires
is not a maintainer's job to review a PR so broken that it requires
significant rework to be acceptable.
Please be respectful to maintainers and disclose AI assistance.
### Expectations for AI-Assisted Contributions
1. **PR descriptions and all comments must be your own words.** Do not paste
LLM output as your PR description, review response, or issue comment.
We want *your* understanding and explanation of the changes, not a
machine-generated summary. An exception is made for LLM-assisted
translation, however, note it explicitly if used.
2. **Contributions must be concise and focused.** A PR that claims to fix one thing
but touches a bunch of unrelated code will be rejected. This is a
common side effect of broad AI prompts and makes review unnecessarily
difficult.
3. **You must be able to handle review feedback yourself.** If you cannot discuss or
implement requested changes without round-tripping reviewer comments
through an AI, that tells us you don't understand the code you
submitted. We will close the PR.
4. **Don't commit non-project files.** Editor configs, AI tool
directories, and other local tooling files do not belong in the
repository. Keep your commits clean.
5. **Changes must be tested.** Build the project, run the tests, and
manually verify the functionality you modified. Don't just assume
CI will catch everything.
6. **Final discretion lies with the reviewers.** If a PR cannot be
reasonably reviewed for any reason due to over-complexity, size, or poor
structure, it will be rejected. This applies equally to AI-assisted
and non-AI-assisted contributions.
## Development
### Tools Required
@@ -202,4 +263,4 @@ DB_TYPE="postgres" DB_USER=postgres DB_PASS=postgres pnpm migration:generate ser
## Attribution
This contribution guide was inspired by the [Next.js](https://github.com/vercel/next.js), [Radarr](https://github.com/Radarr/Radarr), and [Ghostty](https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty) contribution guides.
This contribution guide was inspired by the [Next.js](https://github.com/vercel/next.js), [Radarr](https://github.com/Radarr/Radarr), and [Ghostty](https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty) contribution guides. In addition, our AI policy was draws from [Jellyfin's LLM policies](https://jellyfin.org/docs/general/contributing/llm-policies/).