Contribution Guardrails

Contribution Guardrails

The cross-cutting discipline for AI-assisted Drupal contribution development. The recurring failure this prevents: AI claiming correctness it never verified. Drupal treats this as an existential review-cost problem — AI makes contributing cheap but makes reviewing expensive.

When to Use

• During any development between /drupal-ai-contrib:issue and /drupal-ai-contrib:verify
• Before stating that anything "passes", "works", "is done", or "is secure"
• When about to use an SDK symbol, API parameter, or version-specific behavior
• NOT for: running the gates themselves (that is contribution-verify)

Rule 1 — Evidence over assertion

A gate passes only on a produced artifact. Never on the model stating a verdict.

For each gate, produce → capture → check the artifact:

If you cannot show the artifact, the gate has not passed — say so plainly.

Rule 2 — No guessing external facts

Any external fact — an SDK symbol, an API header or parameter, a beta-feature slug, a library-version behavior — is verified against vendor source or a live probe.

• Model memory and changelog lines are leads, never facts.
• An unverified external fact is a blocker — not a caveat, not a "should".
• Hand the claim to the drupal-ai-contrib:external-fact-verifier agent (Task tool); act only on a verified result.

Rule 3 — Re-verification on post-gate change

Any code edited after its gate passed re-fires that gate for the touched path. Features added after a green test run are the classic escape hatch for unverified code. The PostToolUse re-verification hook marks a changed path's gate stale; verify re-runs every stale gate. Never treat a pre-edit green as still valid.

Rule 4 — Proportionality, justified not assumed

Full gates for features. A light path is allowed for trivial changes — but "trivial" must be explicitly justified and recorded (what makes it trivial, in writing), never assumed. An unrecorded "this is trivial" is the bypass that hides unverified work.

Rule 5 — Scope discipline

Deliver exactly the agreed scope contract — goal / expected result / success criteria / non-goals. AI over-delivers, and every extra line is review burden a maintainer did not ask for. Out-of-scope work is a guardrail violation, not a bonus.

Anti-patterns this skill blocks

• Guessing an API/SDK fact from model memory instead of verifying against source.
• Reporting "tests pass locally" without disclosing local tool versions vs. CI's.
• Dismissing a warning as "noise" without tracing it to its source.
• Entering design or implementation without consulting the relevant dev-guides.
• Delivering beyond the agreed scope contract.
• Marking a task done on local-green before the real drupalci pipeline is green.
• Undisclosed AI use above the policy's "significant portion" threshold.

Examples

Example 1: an unverified "passes"

User says: "The phpcs job should pass now." Actions:

1. "Should" is an assertion, not an artifact (Rule 1).
2. Require the captured phpcs output; if it has not been run, run it and capture it. Result: The gate's verdict is the pasted command output, not a prediction.

Example 2: an SDK symbol from memory

User says: "Use the Client::stream() method from the SDK." Actions:

1. Client::stream() is an external fact recalled from memory (Rule 2).
2. Hand the claim to the drupal-ai-contrib:external-fact-verifier agent — verify against vendor source. Result: Code uses the symbol only after a verified result; otherwise it is blocked.

Troubleshooting

Knowledge layer

Load via dev-guides-navigator: drupal/contributing-with-ai/evidence-over-assertion, drupal/contributing-with-ai/supervised-ai-workflow, drupal/contributing-with-ai/human-review-requirements.