Some of these are misleading. Immich, for example, doesn't accept PRs created using an LLM, but the project has an agents file and there are Claude co-authored commits in the history.

▲

ryanbrunner a day ago | parent | next [-]

"Rules for thee, but not for me" makes some sense for OSS maintainers. The maintainer may be comfortable using AI themselves but isn't interested in slop grenade PRs, especially if they accepted PRs fairly begrudgingly in the first place.

	▲	account42 a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Perhaps but it does make the list less useful as a way to find ethical open source projects.
	▲	m3nu a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Often I'd rather have a good prompt than a PR. Easier to see the intent of the contributor.

▲

bjackman a day ago | parent | prev [-]

And I think that's doing the maintainers a disservice.

"Random strangers, please don't have your agent send us PRs, we don't want to review it" -> yeah, totally reasonable open source maintainer behaviour, doesn't update my perception of the project at all.

"All code in this repo must be written by hand" -> This is probably not a serious project and I'll make a mental note not to depend on it.

If servo is really in the latter camp I'd actually say that's negligent at this point. A browser engine that doesn't have agents scanning for and fixing vulns is totally unacceptable.

▲

JoshTriplett a day ago | parent [-]

"Code must be written by hand" is not at all incompatible with "use agents to scan for vulnerabilities", or for that matter "use agents to find bugs", "use agents to help with profiling to give you data for optimization", or any number of things that aren't writing the code for you.

	▲	bjackman a day ago \| parent [-]
		There's no point in using agents to find vulns if you don't have time to fix them all (you don't)