docs: add contribution gates to AI assistance policy

[mesutoezdil]

Adds six enforceable contribution gates to the AI Assistance section of CONTRIBUTING.md, based on maintainer discussion in #1998.

The existing notice is kept unchanged. The new gates cover:

1. Author-understanding gate: PR closed if author cannot explain their change when asked
2. Hardware validation: required for device allocation and in-container isolation changes; scheduler extender changes may use mock testing
3. Scope and commit messages: no large AI-generated PRs; write your own commit messages
4. Review replies: must be written by the author and address the specific point
5. Commit trailer hygiene: no AI co-author trailers; disclosure in PR description only
6. AI-generated comments: do not post filler or redundant AI-generated review comments

Rule 2 is scoped per @Shouren's feedback (#1998 (comment)): scheduler extender changes do not require real GPU hardware.
Rule 6 is added per @archlitchi's feedback (#1998 (comment)).
Rules 6-8 from the original proposal are deferred pending further discussion.

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

No.

Closes #1998

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Added a new “Contribution Gates” section to the contributor guide.
  • Updated the table of contents to include the new guidance.
  • Clarified contributor requirements, including validation expectations, scope/commit-message rules, review reply etiquette, and restrictions on review-thread comments.

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

CONTRIBUTING.md now includes a table of contents entry and a new “Contribution Gates” section with six contributor rules covering author understanding, hardware validation, scope and commit-message limits, review reply authorship, commit trailer hygiene, and AI-generated review-comment restrictions.

Changes

Contribution Gates documentation

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Add Contribution Gates section and TOC entry CONTRIBUTING.md	Adds a table of contents entry and a new “Contribution Gates” section with six rules on author-understanding, hardware validation, PR/commit scope, review reply authorship, commit trailer hygiene, and AI-generated comment restrictions.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~3 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• Project-HAMi/HAMi#1995: Both PRs modify CONTRIBUTING.md with contributor guidance around review and commit expectations.

Suggested labels: lgtm, approved

Suggested reviewers: ouyangluwei163, saiyam1814, archlitchi

Poem

A rabbit hops through CONTRIBUTING's pages,
Adding gates to guide through all the stages.
Six new rules, clear and bright,
To keep each patch explainable and right.
🐇📜

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	The PR implements the main contribution-gate requirements from #1998 and stays aligned with the requested AI assistance policy update.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	The diff is limited to CONTRIBUTING.md and does not introduce unrelated code or policy changes beyond the stated objective.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately summarizes the docs change adding enforceable contribution gates to the AI assistance policy.

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request updates CONTRIBUTING.md to add a 'Contribution Gates' section containing six rules regarding author understanding, hardware validation, scope/commit messages, review replies, commit trailer hygiene, and AI-generated comments. The review feedback highlights ambiguities in rule 3 (clarifying if the issue and commit-splitting requirements apply to all contributions or only AI-assisted ones) and rule 6 (refining the exception criteria for AI-generated comments to make it more objective and actionable).

Important

The consumer version of Gemini Code Assist on GitHub is being sunset. Starting June 18, 2026, new organization installations will be blocked, and all code review activity will officially cease on July 17, 2026.
For more details on the timeline and next steps, please review the Help Documentation.

[coderabbitai]

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

CONTRIBUTING.md (1)

79-89: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick win

Tighten the gate language so it’s enforceable.

"closed", "small fix", "reviewable commits", and "critical and clearly your own assessment" are still subjective, so this will be hard to apply consistently. If scheduling decisions are meant to be in scope too, say that explicitly in rule 2.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

In `@CONTRIBUTING.md` around lines 79 - 89, Tighten the policy wording in
CONTRIBUTING so the enforcement criteria are less subjective: revise the
author-understanding, scope, commit-message, and AI-generated-comment rules to
use clearer, actionable language, and make sure the terms around closure, small
fixes, reviewable commits, and acceptable exceptions are defined consistently.
Also update the hardware validation rule to explicitly state whether scheduling
decisions are included in scope, so the rule is unambiguous when applied to
changes in the scheduler-related guidance.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Nitpick comments:
In `@CONTRIBUTING.md`:
- Around line 79-89: Tighten the policy wording in CONTRIBUTING so the
enforcement criteria are less subjective: revise the author-understanding,
scope, commit-message, and AI-generated-comment rules to use clearer, actionable
language, and make sure the terms around closure, small fixes, reviewable
commits, and acceptable exceptions are defined consistently. Also update the
hardware validation rule to explicitly state whether scheduling decisions are
included in scope, so the rule is unambiguous when applied to changes in the
scheduler-related guidance.

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 714ecc9a-9bed-4d3f-bd64-3b4a74dd4739

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 02ac4f0 and af3a3bf.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• CONTRIBUTING.md

[mesutoezdil]

cc @archlitchi @chaunceyjiang @DSFans2014 @FouoF @lengrongfu @ouyangluwei163 @wawa0210 @Shouren @rootsongjc @fishman

[rootsongjc]

I agree that AI should be limited and encouraged to be used reasonably.

[Shouren]

/lgtm

[hami-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: mesutoezdil, Shouren

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [Shouren]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment