doc: Explain that low-effort pull requests may be closed
What the developer wrote
Authored by MarcoFalke
doc: Explain that low-effort pull requests may be closed
What changed, and why it matters
This commit only updates the project's contribution guidelines (CONTRIBUTING.md). It adds text telling contributors they must understand and test their own changes, and that low-effort or untested pull requests may be closed. There are no code changes and no security relevance.
No action needed. This is a policy/documentation change with no security implications.
Security signals we found
No strong security signals were identified.
Evidence from the diff
The diff is purely documentation. It inserts two paragraphs into CONTRIBUTING.md: one under the contributor workflow section and one under the peer-review section. No source code, build scripts, tests, or configuration files are modified.
Changed components
CONTRIBUTING.mdInspect captured patch +12 / −0
diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.md b/CONTRIBUTING.md
index 7f42f0be..83a0919a 100644
--- a/CONTRIBUTING.md
+++ b/CONTRIBUTING.md
@@ -78,6 +78,13 @@ The codebase is maintained using the "contributor workflow" where everyone
without exception contributes patch proposals using "pull requests" (PRs). This
facilitates social contribution, easy testing and peer review.
+Pull request authors must fully and confidently understand their own changes
+and must have tested them. Contributors should mention which tests cover their
+changes, or include the manual steps they used to confirm the change.
+Contributors are expected to be prepared to clearly motivate and explain their
+changes. If there is doubt, the pull request may be closed.
+Please refer to the [peer review](#peer-review) section below for more details.
+
To contribute a patch, the workflow is as follows:
1. Fork repository ([only for the first time](https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/working-with-forks/fork-a-repo))
@@ -338,6 +345,11 @@ reviewers that the changes warrant the review effort, and if reviewers are
"Concept NACK'ing" the PR, the author may need to present arguments and/or do
research backing their suggested changes.
+Moreover, if there is reasonable doubt that the pull request author does not
+fully understand the changes they are submitting themselves, or if it becomes
+clear that they have not tested the changes on a basic level themselves, the
+pull request may be closed immediately.
+
#### Conceptual Review
A review can be a conceptual review, where the reviewer leaves a comment
Why this scored 15/100
Community notes
Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.
The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.