doc: add AI/LLM-assisted contributions policy

Add a policy section to CONTRIBUTING.rst requiring disclosure of AI tool
usage, rejecting purely agentic contributions, and outlining consequences
(public ban) for non-disclosure or abusive AI-generated PRs.

Includes context section explaining the rationale — unsupervised agentic
tools waste maintainer time and demonstrate disrespect for human reviewers.

Co-authored-by: Cursor AI <ai@cursor.sh>
Co-authored-by: Anthropic Claude <claude@anthropic.com>

Author: 3 people

CONTRIBUTING.rst

@@ -182,6 +182,54 @@ where someone becomes unresponsive after months of contact attempts.
 As stated, the objective is to share maintenance and avoid "plugin-abandon".
 
 
+.. _ai-contributions:
+
+AI/LLM-Assisted Contributions Policy
+-------------------------------------
+
+We welcome contributions from all developers, including those who use AI/LLM tools
+as part of their workflow. However, we have strict requirements to protect the time
+and effort of our reviewers:
+
+**Disclosure is mandatory.** All contributions that involved AI or LLM assistance
+(e.g. GitHub Copilot, ChatGPT, Claude, or similar tools) must be clearly disclosed
+in the pull request description. State which tools were used and to what extent.
+
+**Purely agentic contributions are not accepted.** Pull requests that are entirely
+generated by AI agents — with no meaningful human review, understanding, or oversight —
+will be closed, and the contributor will be banned. Every contribution must demonstrate
+that a human has reviewed, understood, and taken responsibility for the changes.
+
+**Consequences of non-disclosure.** Failure to disclose AI involvement, or submitting
+low-effort AI-generated pull requests that waste reviewer time, will result in a
+**public ban** from the project. Flooding the project with AI-generated PRs is abuse
+of the maintainers' volunteer time and will be treated as such.
+
+
+Context
+~~~~~~~
+
+With the advent of unsupervised agentic tools like OpenClaw, there has been a rise in low-quality contributions
+where an agent goes on a rampage of low-quality pull requests.
+Oftentimes this looks like a human beginner with fresh agent access trying to learn,
+but in reality it's just an unsupervised agentic tool wasting human time for bad-faith contributions.
+
+With a human we would be more than happy to help and guide them to the right path.
+With an agent we are losing human time we never get back.
+The promise of AI was to free up human time to focus on more important things like family and friends.
+
+Fully agentic contributions turn that around — there is no human learning or growing behind those bots,
+only soulless, semi-functional prompt adherence.
+
+We classify that as evil. Badly guardrailed unsupervised tools that run rampant in open-source projects are not smart;
+they are the combination of bad laziness and lack of critical thinking that costs everyone else.
+
+Part of this originates from us having access to coding agents and being painfully aware of the need to correctly prompt and supervise them.
+Even modern frontier models repeatedly make grave mistakes when working at framework/tooling level.
+
+Anyone running those unsupervised and unguarded on open-source projects is demonstrating complete disrespect for actual humans.
+
+
 .. _`pull requests`:
 .. _pull-requests: