Issue Review Guidelines
When to Use
When you are reviewing an AI-flagged issue, or when you want to understand how your AI-assisted contribution will be evaluated by maintainers.
Decision: Review Depth by Disclosure Level
| Disclosure Level | Review Approach | Time Estimate |
|---|---|---|
| AI Assisted Issue (text only) | Normal review — evaluate issue quality, not AI usage | Standard |
| AI Assisted Code | Normal code review — assume contributor understands the code | Standard |
| AI Generated Code | Enhanced review — probe understanding, test edge cases, verify API correctness | 1.5-2x standard |
| Vibe Coded | Full audit — question every line, verify contributor can explain choices, consider rejection | 2-3x standard |
Pattern: What Reviewers Look For
Understanding of the problem: - Can the contributor explain what the bug is and why the fix works? - Does the issue demonstrate understanding beyond "AI told me"? - Are the steps to reproduce verified and accurate?
Code quality signals: - Does the code follow Drupal coding standards? - Are the right APIs used for the Drupal version? - Is dependency injection used where appropriate? - Are there access checks where needed? - Is output properly sanitized?
Red flags for AI-generated patches: 1. Contributor can't explain their own patch — Asked a question about the code and they don't know the answer 2. Tests only cover happy path — No edge cases, error conditions, or boundary testing 3. Code uses non-existent APIs — Hallucinated function names, service names, or method signatures 4. Over-engineered solution — Complex abstraction where a simple approach would suffice 5. Style inconsistencies — Mix of coding styles suggesting copy-paste from AI without review
Pattern: Reviewer Guidance (#3569240)
From the AI module project's review guidelines: - Treat AI-flagged contributions with appropriate scrutiny, not hostility - Ask contributors to explain their technical choices - If in doubt about code understanding, ask specific questions about implementation details - Consider requiring additional test coverage for AI-generated code - Document your review concerns in the issue for transparency
Common Mistakes
- Rejecting solely because AI was used — Drupal's policy is disclose-and-verify, not ban. Judge the code quality.
- Skipping review because "it's just AI Assisted" — All code gets reviewed. The disclosure level affects depth, not whether review happens.
- Not asking the contributor to explain — The simplest test: "Why did you choose this approach?" If they can't answer, the contribution needs more work.
- Timeboxing vibe-coded patches generously — If a vibe-coded patch would take longer to review than to rewrite, it may be more efficient to close and rewrite
See Also
- Drupal AI Policy — policy context for review
- AI Code Review Checklist — checklist for contributors before submission
- Human Review Requirements — what thorough review means
- Contribution Etiquette, RTBC & Credit — RTBC discipline and general review etiquette (this guide covers the AI-specific angle only)
- Reference: #3569240 AI Issue Review Guidelines