doc: add AI/LLM-assisted contributions policy

.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md

@@ -11,6 +11,11 @@ If this change fixes an issue, please:
 
 - [ ] Add text like ``closes #XYZW`` to the PR description and/or commits (where ``XYZW`` is the issue number). See the [github docs](https://help.github.com/en/github/managing-your-work-on-github/linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue#linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue-using-a-keyword) for more information.
 
+> [!IMPORTANT]
+> **Unsupervised agentic contributions are not accepted**. See our [AI/LLM-Assisted Contributions Policy](https://github.com/pytest-dev/pytest/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.rst#aillm-assisted-contributions-policy).
+
+- [ ] If AI agents were used, they are credited in `Co-authored-by` commit trailers.
+
 Unless your change is trivial or a small documentation fix (e.g., a typo or reword of a small section) please:
 
 - [ ] Create a new changelog file in the `changelog` directory, with a name like `<ISSUE NUMBER>.<TYPE>.rst`. See [changelog/README.rst](https://github.com/pytest-dev/pytest/blob/main/changelog/README.rst) for details.

CONTRIBUTING.rst

@@ -182,6 +182,75 @@ 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 requirements to protect the time
+and effort of our reviewers:
+
+**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. Every contribution must demonstrate that a human has reviewed,
+understood, and taken responsibility for the changes. If you submit it, you own it.
+
+**You are responsible for your contribution.** Regardless of how the code was
+produced, the person submitting a pull request must understand the changes and be
+able to respond to review feedback. If a reviewer asks questions or requests changes,
+they expect to interact with someone who can engage substantively, not an automated
+loop replaying prompts.
+
+**Credit AI tools via attribution.** If AI agents helped produce your code or
+commits, consider adding ``Co-authored-by`` trailers to your commit messages to
+credit them. This is not required, but helps reviewers set expectations and is
+appreciated.
+
+**Respect maintainer time.** Submitting low-effort AI-generated pull requests that
+waste reviewer time may result in a ban from the project. Our maintainers are
+volunteers, and contributions should reflect genuine engagement with the project.
+
+
+Context
+~~~~~~~
+
+With the advent of unsupervised agentic tools like OpenClaw,
+there has been a rise in low-quality contributions
+where an agent produces a large number of low-quality pull requests.
+Oftentimes this can look similar to a human beginner with new access to tools
+and trying to learn, but in practice it is usually an unsupervised agentic tool
+generating changes without meaningful human review.
+
+When a human contributor is learning, we are glad to invest time to help,
+give feedback, and guide them in the right direction. With fully agentic,
+unsupervised tools, that same review effort does not support anyone's learning
+or growth. Instead, it diverts limited maintainer time away from improving the
+project and supporting engaged contributors.
+
+There is also an asymmetry at play: someone is prioritizing what we review
+without making an equivalent investment of time or effort.
+When a contributor works on an issue themselves, they invest real time, effectively
+earning influence over what the project focuses on. Unsupervised agentic contributions
+expect to set that priority at near-zero cost to the sender, while shifting the
+entire burden onto maintainers.
+
+Fully agentic contributions invert the intended benefit of these tools: rather than
+saving time, they create avoidable review and triage work. There is no accountable
+human author thoughtfully iterating on feedback, only automated output driven
+by prompts.
+
+From our own experience using coding agents, we know they must be carefully prompted,
+supervised, and checked by humans. Even modern models can make serious mistakes when
+operating at framework or tooling level, and those mistakes can be subtle and
+time-consuming to diagnose.
+
+Running such tools unsupervised on open-source projects imposes this cost on
+maintainers and other contributors without their consent. Our goal with this policy
+is to set clear expectations, protect reviewer time, and ensure that contributions
+remain collaborative, respectful, and sustainable.
+
+
 .. _`pull requests`:
 .. _pull-requests: