docs: Disclosure of AI agents with respect to development process

未关闭
  • 哪里不对？
#584 1 条评论 2 个 reaction 已指派 0 人 在 GitHub 查看

维护者通常 1 天内回复

还没有人认领这个 Issue。

评估

难度
5/5
预计耗时
一周以上
新手友好度
30/100
Issue 类型
文档
描述清晰度
需要澄清
活跃度
冷清
技术栈
github
领域
documentation

调研方向

该 issue 未指定文档文件或测试；首先结合 PR #532 以及 repository 中现有的面向贡献者的指南，审查所请求的披露内容。完成的标准是，项目有一份清晰且醒目的声明，说明 AI agents 或自动化何时参与 issue 和 pull request 的互动。

由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。

描述

documentation

TL;DR: Recent activity on this project by maintainers has left some ambiguity to their development process, and what users or contributors should expect when engaging with the comfy-cli repo. This should be documented with clear disclosure of how AI has been adopted into the process.

If the observations are correct, that maintainers are no longer directly engaging with issues and PRs via the Github browser interface, but instead abstracted via an API and delegating agents to act on their behalf through developer GH accounts, including acts such as posting comments and PR feedback/approval... transparency of this delegation should be clearly disclosed, as presently the ability to discern any form human interaction in the review process is looking questionable?

I appreciate the labels like agent-coded to provide context, but when AI tooling has been used to manage issues (closing them in bulk with commentary tailored to each message), and also in PR descriptions, discussion and feedback/approval... It is less obvious the prose in these cases is not authored by a human unless certain mannerisms/content is present to distinguish this.

Could the project please disclose this is part of the process used now? There's been an uptick in PR activity for example, but examples like this PR give a strong impression that even the reviewer involved is agentic or through some AI tool generating that comment content?

For users of the project, this concern may be a niche concern. For OSS the added transparency however would be appreciated as the accounts are assumed to belong to real humans while these interactions are either automated or managed via some higher-level interface/service, rather than from Github itself which is what is available to the public eye.

Traditionally engagement with issues/PRs from those with commit access on this project has stalled, and with the recent closing of issues (all actioned in the same minute), it's unclear if there's a real human that can be engaged with as notifications may not reach the account owner if a third-party service is managing issues and PRs via an API alone while AI agents submit and review PRs with whatever degree of oversight by said account owners.

An example of where this is problematic is that any user engaging with the comfy-cli repo is highly likely to do so via the GH web interface (especially for issues), and they're most likely to be doing so directly as a human rather than delegated via an automated task. When a maintainer responds (such as closing an issue for any given reason), attempting to engage with that maintainer may be unsuccessful, and in turn any actions suggested by the comment may result in similar automated actions taking place unintentionally. This is not ideal for the maintainers (whom may be unaware of the attempt to reach out), nor for the public image of the repo (and thus the organization itself).

I don't have an issue with the use of AI, but as a user I'd very much appreciate upfront disclosure when engagement will not only be ignored (for reasons I understand), but attempts to contribute not only becoming stale from lack of upstream engagement but by automation quietly dismissing efforts via accounts that will not respond when a follow-up query to their action is commented (an issue I've experienced personally several times over the past year by the Comfy-Org organization).

Without providing such transparency, these additional practices with AI tooling do accumulate across the various users engaging with the project that it can erode trust and leave a negative impression, which while ComfyUI has reached levels of success a good driver of that was via community and OSS... I would hope this request is fair and won't be dismissed.

主要语言
Python
星标
1k
派生
176
平均合并
1 天 11 小时
30 天内合并 PR
87

环境准备

  • 没有 Dockerfile 或 Docker Compose 文件
  • 没有 Pull Request 模板
  • 阅读贡献指南

从这里开始

  1. 先读完整个 Issue，再读项目的贡献指南。
  2. 在 Issue 下留言说明你要接手 —— 这能避免两个人做同样的事。
  3. Fork 仓库，在一个分支上完成修改。
  4. 提交 Pull Request，并在描述里引用这个 Issue 编号。

Comfy-Org/comfy-cli 的其他 Issue

查看 Comfy-Org/comfy-cli 的全部 Issue

相似的 Issue

更多 Python Issue

把新 issue 发到你的邮箱

精选适合新手参与的 GitHub issue 摘要。