Re: [RFC] reworking the review-prompts subsystem guide

[Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>]

On Mon, 05 Oct 2026 21:14:12 +0000 Roman Gushchin wrote:
> I plan to do this (and had a prototype in the past), but it's tricky if
> we take security seriously. And we absolutely should!
> Obviously just giving an agent an access to lore archive is opening a
> can of worms in terms of possible prompt injections. So I think we
> should do it really carefully.

Hm, is there really much extra attack surface here beyond what people
can already put in a commit message of a fake patch?

> And outside of security considerations,
> humans are simple wrong too. So my plan with sashiko is to force it to
> try to verify the feedback against the codebase and if it's not possible
> trust only maintainers or people with a long history of meaningful
> contributions.

Definitely, I was also wondering about doing some rough estimate
of "trustworthiness" of the person based on how long they have been
contributing + MAINTAINERS status. In practice, tho, noobs rarely
provide feedback. Closing the loop with patchwork is a better idea
(if patch go rejected == maintainer must have judged some feedback
as important)

> And sashiko can (and does in my prototype) generate prompts based on the
> feedback and automatically verify that it helps by re-reviewing original
> patches. This should mostly eliminate a need for human-generated
> prompts.
> This is all doable, but probably will take few more week to build and
> roll out.