AI Usage Policy#
Note: Some Icechunk developers use AI tools as part of our development workflow. We assume this is now common. Tools, patterns, and norms are evolving fast — this policy aims to avoid restricting contributors' choice of tooling while ensuring that:
- Reviewers are not overburdened
- Contributions can be maintained
- The submitter can vouch for and explain all changes
To that end this policy applies regardless of whether the code was written by hand, with AI assistance, or generated entirely by an AI tool.
Core Principle: Changes#
If you submit a pull request, you are responsible for understanding and having fully reviewed the changes. You must be able to explain why each change is correct[^1] and how it fits into the project. Strive to minimize changes to ease the burden on reviewers — avoid including unnecessary or loosely related changes.
[^1]: You may also open a draft PR with changes in order to discuss and receive feedback on the best approach if you are not sure what the best way forward is.
Core Principle: Communication#
PR descriptions, issue comments, and review responses must be your own words. The substance and reasoning must come from you. Do not paste AI-generated text as comments or review responses. Please attempt to be concise.
Using AI to improve the language of your writing (grammar, phrasing, spelling, etc.) is acceptable. Be careful that it does not introduce inaccurate details in the process.
Code and Tests#
Review Every Line#
You must have personally reviewed and understood all changes before submitting.
If you used AI to generate code, you are expected to have read it critically and tested it. As with a hand-written PR, the description should explain the approach and reasoning behind the changes. Do not leave it to reviewers to figure out what the code does and why.
Not Acceptable#
I pointed an agent at the issue and here are the changes
This is what Claude came up with. 🤷
Acceptable#
I iterated multiple times with an agent to produce this. The agent wrote the code at my direction, and I have fully read and validated the changes.
I pointed an agent at the issue and it generated a first draft. I reviewed the changes thoroughly and understand the implementation well.
Large AI-Assisted Contributions#
Generating code with agents is fast and easy. Reviewing it is not. Making a PR with a large diff shifts the burden from the contributor to the reviewer. To guard against this asymmetry:
If you are planning a large AI-assisted contribution (e.g., a significant refactor, a framework migration, or a new subsystem), open an issue first to discuss the scope and approach with maintainers. This helps us decide if the change is worthwhile, how it should be structured, and any other important decisions.
Maintainers reserve the right to close PRs where the scope makes meaningful review impractical, or when they suspect this policy has been violated. Similarly they may request that large changes be broken into smaller, reviewable pieces.
Documentation#
The same core principles apply to both code and documentation You must review the result for accuracy and are ultimately responsible for all changes made. Icechunk has domain-specific semantics that AI tools frequently get wrong. Do not submit documentation that you haven't carefully read and verified.