You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to notifications@shardingsphere.apache.org by "ClaireLytt (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org> on 2026/08/07 12:23:18 UTC
[I] [Suggestion]Add community AI-assisted first-pass PR review workflow [shardingsphere]
ClaireLytt opened a new issue, #39376:
URL: https://github.com/apache/shardingsphere/issues/39376
## Feature Request
**For English only**, other languages will not be accepted.
Please pay attention on issues you submitted, because we maybe need more details.
If no response anymore and we cannot make decision by current information, we will **close it**.
Please answer these questions before submitting your issue. Thanks!
### Is your feature request related to a problem?
Yes. ShardingSphere has a large volume of pull requests. Committers often need a lot of time for the first-round review: checking whether the PR description matches the real code path, whether compatibility and tests are covered, and whether there are obvious gaps before a human deep review.
This first-pass triage is important, but it is also repetitive and time-consuming. As a result, contributors may wait longer for actionable feedback, and committers spend review bandwidth on issues that could have been caught earlier with a structured checklist.
### Describe the feature you would like.
I would like ShardingSphere to discuss and optionally pilot an **accountable AI first-pass PR reviewer** as a community process enhancement (not as an unsupervised merge bot).
#### Proposed scope
1. A dedicated GitHub account used only for AI-assisted PR review, with clear public disclosure in the profile (AI assistant + human owner/contact).
2. The assistant performs a structured first-pass review on selected PRs, for example:
- problem understanding and whether the patch matches the claimed intent
- runtime/call-path check against real code
- compatibility and user-facing behavior impact
- test adequacy and obvious regression risks
- documentation/description accuracy
- clear separation of blockers vs non-blocking suggestions
3. Human committers remain the final reviewers and decision makers for merge.
#### Explicit non-goals / guardrails
1. The AI assistant must not be the sole required approving reviewer.
2. The AI assistant must not merge PRs, close issues, or change repository settings.
3. All AI reviews should be traceable to a named human owner who is responsible for the account.
4. Start as an optional pilot (for example docs / small fixes / first-time contributor PRs), not a mandatory gate for all PRs.
#### Why this may help ShardingSphere
1. Faster, more consistent first-round feedback for contributors.
2. Less repetitive triage load for committers.
3. Better review quality if the assistant is guided by ShardingSphere-specific review standards, rather than a generic third-party lint bot.
#### Open questions for the community
1. Do we want this as an official pilot, or only allow individual committers to experiment first?
2. Should AI `APPROVE` be informational only and excluded from required review counts?
3. Which PR types should be in the first pilot scope?
4. Who should be the human owner/operator of the assistant account?
5. Should this be documented in contributor/reviewer guidance if the pilot works well?
I am happy to help with a draft review template, pilot criteria, and sample reviews for community evaluation.
--
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: notifications-unsubscribe@shardingsphere.apache.org.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [I] [Suggestion]Add community AI-assisted first-pass PR review workflow [shardingsphere]
Posted by "linghengqian (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
linghengqian commented on issue #39376:
URL: https://github.com/apache/shardingsphere/issues/39376#issuecomment-5229744070
I'm not sure how many people have participated in this discussion, but if doing so can avoid https://github.com/NixOS/org/pull/277 or https://x.com/valigo/status/2086152341762531365?s=20 , I wouldn't object.
--
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: notifications-unsubscribe@shardingsphere.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [I] [Suggestion]Add community AI-assisted first-pass PR review workflow [shardingsphere]
Posted by "terrymanu (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
terrymanu commented on issue #39376:
URL: https://github.com/apache/shardingsphere/issues/39376#issuecomment-5324570022
Hi @ClaireLytt, thanks for the well-structured proposal. +1 for the overall direction. I like that it is positioned as an accountable, human-owned first-pass assistant rather than an unsupervised review bot, and the non-goals you listed (no sole approval, no merge/close permissions, named human owner) are exactly the right guardrails.
Regarding the open questions, my take:
Let's start with a limited optional pilot (e.g. docs and small first-time-contributor PRs) instead of an official mandatory gate for all PRs.
Yes, AI APPROVE should be informational only and excluded from required review counts.
I'd leave the pilot scope to the initial draft and adjust based on the results.
Please go ahead with the draft review template, pilot criteria and sample reviews you mentioned. Once we see a few concrete sample reviews, it will be much easier for the community to evaluate and decide whether to formalize it.
--
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: notifications-unsubscribe@shardingsphere.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [I] [Suggestion]Add community AI-assisted first-pass PR review workflow [shardingsphere]
Posted by "rishi-rana (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
rishi-rana commented on issue #39376:
URL: https://github.com/apache/shardingsphere/issues/39376#issuecomment-5701146218
@ClaireLytt this is definitely a good direction to go in, I just have a small suggestion, I would rather not have AI to approve or reject PRs, but instead it just be a github action that will do all the things you have described, and only if this github action passes then only it runs any other actions. In this AI github action it will just comment with findings, and if there is actionable feedback, the action must fail.
--
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: notifications-unsubscribe@shardingsphere.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [I] [Suggestion]Add community AI-assisted first-pass PR review workflow [shardingsphere]
Posted by "linghengqian (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
linghengqian commented on issue #39376:
URL: https://github.com/apache/shardingsphere/issues/39376#issuecomment-5862177080
- https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling-terms-reviewed.html provides a checklist, and we probably should avoid using AI models or AI agent software involving `Category X`. The checklist is still being updated, and https://lists.apache.org/thread/34kd4nk3dop2xpd28o4jllz05c4zv1cw is discussing whether all models provided by `SpaceXAI` and software such as https://github.com/xai-org/grok-build and `Cursor` need to be added to `Category X`.
> Category X
> For these rows the reviewed terms impose, or appear to impose, a condition inconsistent with contribution use. Do not contribute output generated under the listed conditions without asking on legal-discuss first. Where a row says the issue is feature-specific, it does not extend to other features or tiers.
> When using Output or SpaceXAI’s name, logos, trademarks, or other brand elements, you are required to obtain our permission and attribute your generation of the Output to the Service, as detailed in our Brand Guidelines.
> Using the Service or any Output to develop (or assist anyone in developing) machine learning models or any products or services that compete with SpaceXAI, whether directly or indirectly
--
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: notifications-unsubscribe@shardingsphere.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [I] [Suggestion]Add community AI-assisted first-pass PR review workflow [shardingsphere]
Posted by "ClaireLytt (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
ClaireLytt commented on issue #39376:
URL: https://github.com/apache/shardingsphere/issues/39376#issuecomment-5229841448
> I'm not sure how many people have participated in this discussion, but if doing so can avoid [NixOS/org#277](https://github.com/NixOS/org/pull/277) or https://x.com/valigo/status/2086152341762531365?s=20 , I wouldn't object.
Thanks for the pointer. I agree that risk avoidance should come first.
For now, I’d mainly like to hear more community feedback and whether this direction is acceptable. If you have additional constraints we should set before any pilot, please feel free to share them.
--
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: notifications-unsubscribe@shardingsphere.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [I] [Suggestion]Add community AI-assisted first-pass PR review workflow [shardingsphere]
Posted by "ClaireLytt (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
ClaireLytt commented on issue #39376:
URL: https://github.com/apache/shardingsphere/issues/39376#issuecomment-5707488303
@rishi-rana
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts! It's great to see more community members joining this discussion.
Regarding the AI approve/reject concern — I completely agree, and that's actually already covered in the proposal under "Explicit non-goals / guardrails" (points 1 and 2). The intent has always been that AI should never be the decision maker.
As for the specific implementation approach, I think that's exactly the kind of decision that should be shaped by broader community input. I'd love to hear more perspectives from committers and contributors before converging on a particular direction. The more voices we have in this conversation, the better the outcome will be for the project.
--
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: notifications-unsubscribe@shardingsphere.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org