[PATCH v2] docs/process: document AI-assisted patch tags

[PATCH v2] docs/process: document AI-assisted patch tags

[Cody Zuschlag]

Add documentation for the Assisted-by tag to clarify how
AI-assisted tooling may be disclosed in Xen patches.

The guidance is inspired by similar work in the Linux kernel
documentation.

Assisted-by: ChatGPT
Signed-off-by: Cody Zuschlag <cody.zuschlag@gmail.com>
---
 docs/process/sending-patches.pandoc | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)

diff --git a/docs/process/sending-patches.pandoc b/docs/process/sending-patches.pandoc
index 798ecceb..b61584f9 100644
--- a/docs/process/sending-patches.pandoc
+++ b/docs/process/sending-patches.pandoc
@@ -195,6 +195,25 @@ E.g.:
 
     Requested-by: Jane Doe <jane.doe@example.org>
 
+### Assisted-by:
+
+This optional tag can be used when AI-assisted tooling contributed to the
+preparation of a patch. It is in the format:
+
+    Assisted-by: <tool-name>[:<model-version>] [tool...]
+
+E.g.:
+
+    Assisted-by: Claude:claude-3-opus coccinelle sparse
+    Assisted-by: ChatGPT:gpt-5.5
+
+Basic development tools, such as git, compilers, make, and editors, should
+not be listed.
+
+The person submitting the patch remains responsible for reviewing any
+AI-generated content and ensuring the contribution is correct, appropriate,
+and compliant with Xen's contribution and licensing requirements.
+
 ### Signed-off-by:
 
 This mandatory tag specifies the author(s) of a patch (for each author a
@@ -209,6 +228,9 @@ E.g.:
 The author must be a natural person (not a team or just a company) and the
 `Signed-off-by:` tag must include the real name of the author (no pseudonym).
 
+AI tools must not add `Signed-off-by:` tags, as only natural
+persons can certify the `Developer's Certificate of Origin`.
+
 By signing the patch with her/his name the author explicitly confirms to have
 made the contribution conforming to the `Developer's Certificate of Origin`:
 
-- 
2.45.0

Re: [PATCH v2] docs/process: document AI-assisted patch tags

[Jan Beulich]

On 19.05.2026 16:20, Cody Zuschlag wrote:
> --- a/docs/process/sending-patches.pandoc
> +++ b/docs/process/sending-patches.pandoc
> @@ -195,6 +195,25 @@ E.g.:
>  
>      Requested-by: Jane Doe <jane.doe@example.org>
>  
> +### Assisted-by:
> +
> +This optional tag can be used when AI-assisted tooling contributed to the
> +preparation of a patch.

Noticed only while reading your other email, plus checking the Linux
wording: s/can/should/ at the very least? (Personally I'd make it a
requirement.)

> It is in the format:
> +
> +    Assisted-by: <tool-name>[:<model-version>] [tool...]
> +
> +E.g.:
> +
> +    Assisted-by: Claude:claude-3-opus coccinelle sparse
> +    Assisted-by: ChatGPT:gpt-5.5
> +
> +Basic development tools, such as git, compilers, make, and editors, should
> +not be listed.
> +
> +The person submitting the patch remains responsible for reviewing any
> +AI-generated content and ensuring the contribution is correct, appropriate,
> +and compliant with Xen's contribution and licensing requirements.
> +
>  ### Signed-off-by:
>  
>  This mandatory tag specifies the author(s) of a patch (for each author a
> @@ -209,6 +228,9 @@ E.g.:
>  The author must be a natural person (not a team or just a company) and the
>  `Signed-off-by:` tag must include the real name of the author (no pseudonym).
>  
> +AI tools must not add `Signed-off-by:` tags, as only natural
> +persons can certify the `Developer's Certificate of Origin`.

Linux emphasizes "MUST NOT". I think that's advisable for us as well. I
also wonder whether some of their other wording might be worth taking
verbatim, rather than making our own, slightly different variant.

Nit: Wrap differently to make better use of line length?

Jan

Re: [PATCH v2] docs/process: document AI-assisted patch tags

[Stefano Stabellini]

On Thu, 21 May 2026, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 19.05.2026 16:20, Cody Zuschlag wrote:
> > --- a/docs/process/sending-patches.pandoc
> > +++ b/docs/process/sending-patches.pandoc
> > @@ -195,6 +195,25 @@ E.g.:
> >  
> >      Requested-by: Jane Doe <jane.doe@example.org>
> >  
> > +### Assisted-by:
> > +
> > +This optional tag can be used when AI-assisted tooling contributed to the
> > +preparation of a patch.
> 
> Noticed only while reading your other email, plus checking the Linux
> wording: s/can/should/ at the very least? (Personally I'd make it a
> requirement.)
> 
> > It is in the format:
> > +
> > +    Assisted-by: <tool-name>[:<model-version>] [tool...]
> > +
> > +E.g.:
> > +
> > +    Assisted-by: Claude:claude-3-opus coccinelle sparse
> > +    Assisted-by: ChatGPT:gpt-5.5
> > +
> > +Basic development tools, such as git, compilers, make, and editors, should
> > +not be listed.
> > +
> > +The person submitting the patch remains responsible for reviewing any
> > +AI-generated content and ensuring the contribution is correct, appropriate,
> > +and compliant with Xen's contribution and licensing requirements.
> > +
> >  ### Signed-off-by:
> >  
> >  This mandatory tag specifies the author(s) of a patch (for each author a
> > @@ -209,6 +228,9 @@ E.g.:
> >  The author must be a natural person (not a team or just a company) and the
> >  `Signed-off-by:` tag must include the real name of the author (no pseudonym).
> >  
> > +AI tools must not add `Signed-off-by:` tags, as only natural
> > +persons can certify the `Developer's Certificate of Origin`.
> 
> Linux emphasizes "MUST NOT". I think that's advisable for us as well. I
> also wonder whether some of their other wording might be worth taking
> verbatim, rather than making our own, slightly different variant.

I agree with Jan's suggestion. Other than that:

Acked-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>

Re: [PATCH v2] docs/process: document AI-assisted patch tags

[Roger Pau Monné]

On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 05:46:18PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 19.05.2026 16:20, Cody Zuschlag wrote:
> > --- a/docs/process/sending-patches.pandoc
> > +++ b/docs/process/sending-patches.pandoc
> > @@ -195,6 +195,25 @@ E.g.:
> >  
> >      Requested-by: Jane Doe <jane.doe@example.org>
> >  
> > +### Assisted-by:
> > +
> > +This optional tag can be used when AI-assisted tooling contributed to the
> > +preparation of a patch.
> 
> Noticed only while reading your other email, plus checking the Linux
> wording: s/can/should/ at the very least? (Personally I'd make it a
> requirement.)
> 
> > It is in the format:
> > +
> > +    Assisted-by: <tool-name>[:<model-version>] [tool...]
> > +
> > +E.g.:
> > +
> > +    Assisted-by: Claude:claude-3-opus coccinelle sparse
> > +    Assisted-by: ChatGPT:gpt-5.5
> > +
> > +Basic development tools, such as git, compilers, make, and editors, should
> > +not be listed.
> > +
> > +The person submitting the patch remains responsible for reviewing any
> > +AI-generated content and ensuring the contribution is correct, appropriate,
> > +and compliant with Xen's contribution and licensing requirements.
> > +
> >  ### Signed-off-by:
> >  
> >  This mandatory tag specifies the author(s) of a patch (for each author a
> > @@ -209,6 +228,9 @@ E.g.:
> >  The author must be a natural person (not a team or just a company) and the
> >  `Signed-off-by:` tag must include the real name of the author (no pseudonym).
> >  
> > +AI tools must not add `Signed-off-by:` tags, as only natural
> > +persons can certify the `Developer's Certificate of Origin`.
> 
> Linux emphasizes "MUST NOT". I think that's advisable for us as well. I
> also wonder whether some of their other wording might be worth taking
> verbatim, rather than making our own, slightly different variant.
> 
> Nit: Wrap differently to make better use of line length?

With the proposed changes:

Acked-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com>

Thanks, Roger.