ci: add AI-collaboration contract and PR gates for slop review

Codify the rules agents and contributors are judged by: a tracked
AGENTS.md instruction contract, a Contribution Expectations section in
CONTRIBUTING, and a minimal PR template. Align the AI-slop review
policy with them - linkage substance, test/defensive-code padding,
write-access skips, disclosure as transparency - and add two
tamper-resistant checks: an ai-slop:high merge gate with a linked-issue
requirement (no-issue-needed exemption), plus a docs-consistency anchor
check guarding the cross-references.

.github/workflows/ai-slop-gate.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+name: ai-slop-gate
+
+# pull_request_target runs this file from the base branch, so a PR cannot
+# weaken its own gates. No checkout and no secrets: every check reads only
+# the event payload.
+on:
+  pull_request_target:
+    types: [opened, reopened, synchronize, labeled, unlabeled, edited, ready_for_review]
+
+permissions: {}
+
+jobs:
+  gate:
+    name: ai-slop-gate
+    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
+    steps:
+      - name: Fail while ai-slop:high is present
+        if: contains(join(github.event.pull_request.labels.*.name, ','), 'ai-slop:high')
+        run: |
+          echo "::error::ai-slop:high is present. Resolve the ownership concerns from the AI-slop review (issue linkage, scope, or implementation changes) so the label can be removed."
+          exit 1
+
+  linked-issue:
+    name: linked-issue-check
+    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
+    steps:
+      - name: Require an issue reference in title or body
+        env:
+          PR_TITLE: ${{ github.event.pull_request.title }}
+          PR_BODY: ${{ github.event.pull_request.body }}
+          LABELS: ${{ join(github.event.pull_request.labels.*.name, ',') }}
+          DRAFT: ${{ github.event.pull_request.draft }}
+        run: |
+          if [ "$DRAFT" = "true" ] || printf '%s' "$LABELS" | grep -q 'no-issue-needed'; then
+            echo "Draft or no-issue-needed; linkage check skipped."
+            exit 0
+          fi
+          if printf '%s\n%s\n' "$PR_TITLE" "$PR_BODY" | grep -Eq '#[0-9]+|issues/[0-9]+'; then
+            echo "Issue reference found."
+          else
+            echo "::error::No issue reference found in the PR title or body. Link the issue (e.g. \"Fixes #123\"), or ask a maintainer to add the no-issue-needed label if the change is trivial."
+            exit 1
+          fi

.github/workflows/docs-consistency.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+name: docs-consistency
+
+# Guards the cross-references between the collaboration documents so the
+# written contract (CONTRIBUTING, AGENTS.md, PR template) and the enforced
+# policy (pr-ai-slop-review) cannot drift apart unnoticed. Advisory only:
+# it informs, it does not gate merges.
+on:
+  pull_request:
+    paths:
+      - CONTRIBUTING.md
+      - AGENTS.md
+      - CLAUDE.md
+      - GEMINI.md
+      - .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
+      - .github/workflows/pr-ai-slop-review.md
+      - .github/workflows/docs-consistency.yml
+  push:
+    branches: [dev]
+    paths:
+      - CONTRIBUTING.md
+      - AGENTS.md
+      - CLAUDE.md
+      - GEMINI.md
+      - .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
+      - .github/workflows/pr-ai-slop-review.md
+  workflow_dispatch:
+
+permissions:
+  contents: read
+
+jobs:
+  check:
+    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
+    steps:
+      - uses: actions/checkout@v7
+      - name: Check cross-document anchors
+        run: |
+          check() { grep -q "$2" "$1" || { echo "::error::anchor '$2' missing from $1"; exit 1; }; }
+          check CONTRIBUTING.md '## Contribution Expectations'
+          check CONTRIBUTING.md 'ai-slop:med'
+          check CONTRIBUTING.md 'ai-slop:high'
+          check AGENTS.md 'Issue first'
+          check AGENTS.md 'Author accountability'
+          check AGENTS.md 'pr-ai-slop-review'
+          check AGENTS.md 'Disclose AI automation'
+          check CONTRIBUTING.md 'Assisted by:'
+          check .github/workflows/pr-ai-slop-review.md '(../../CONTRIBUTING.md)'
+          check .github/workflows/pr-ai-slop-review.md '(../../AGENTS.md)'
+          check AGENTS.md 'gh aw compile'
+          check CONTRIBUTING.md 'gh aw compile'
+          check AGENTS.md 'Tests are justified'
+          check CONTRIBUTING.md 'Do not pad'
+          check CLAUDE.md '@AGENTS.md'
+          check GEMINI.md 'AGENTS.md'
+          check .github/workflows/pr-ai-slop-review.md 'Linkage Laundering'
+          check .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md '## Problem'
+          check .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md '## Approach'
+          check .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md '## Scope'
+          echo "All cross-document anchors are consistent."
+      - name: How to fix a failure
+        if: failure()
+        run: |
+          cat <<'EOF'
+          An anchor phrase moved or disappeared. If you intentionally reworded
+          one of the collaboration documents, update the other documents (and
+          this check's anchor list) in the same change so the written contract
+          and the AI-slop policy keep telling the same story.
+          EOF

.github/workflows/pr-ai-slop-review.lock.yml

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# gh-aw-metadata: {"schema_version":"v4","frontmatter_hash":"780d90d085ef7319e2034b7fea015a313fdec473fda466617afdd7e5f18b6d49","body_hash":"bc3c37f14e74b9cd8e7c3b1aec9ee0abae182ff976603e30d3733955727fc7a6","compiler_version":"v0.88.5","strict":true,"agent_id":"copilot","engine_versions":{"copilot":"1.0.80"}}
+# gh-aw-metadata: {"schema_version":"v4","frontmatter_hash":"b0218f1c386b59229c8197ebc442ed5e99e8676527ceb403d05d8f2746f4329d","body_hash":"7515acac943520944fbf12e57f43fb30b1ed02da54682acbcffbcbd4bdba2885","compiler_version":"v0.88.5","strict":true,"agent_id":"copilot","engine_versions":{"copilot":"1.0.80"}}
 # gh-aw-manifest: {"version":1,"secrets":["COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN","GH_AW_DEFAULT_OTLP_HEADERS","GH_AW_GITHUB_MCP_SERVER_TOKEN","GH_AW_GITHUB_TOKEN","GITHUB_TOKEN"],"actions":[{"repo":"actions/cache/restore","sha":"55cc8345863c7cc4c66a329aec7e433d2d1c52a9","version":"v6.1.0"},{"repo":"actions/cache/save","sha":"55cc8345863c7cc4c66a329aec7e433d2d1c52a9","version":"v6.1.0"},{"repo":"actions/checkout","sha":"3d3c42e5aac5ba805825da76410c181273ba90b1","version":"v7.0.1"},{"repo":"actions/download-artifact","sha":"3e5f45b2cfb9172054b4087a40e8e0b5a5461e7c","version":"v8.0.1"},{"repo":"actions/github-script","sha":"3a2844b7e9c422d3c10d287c895573f7108da1b3","version":"v9.0.0"},{"repo":"actions/upload-artifact","sha":"043fb46d1a93c77aae656e7c1c64a875d1fc6a0a","version":"v7.0.1"},{"repo":"github/gh-aw-actions/setup","sha":"d462c12b8f1f616b55fed699787b0280c594e592","version":"v0.88.5"}],"containers":[{"image":"ghcr.io/github/gh-aw-firewall/agent:0.28.13","digest":"sha256:78aeb1eee876d1ebae5eef26402bd9f31112850d42016a240002d1da57203e15","pinned_image":"ghcr.io/github/gh-aw-firewall/agent:0.28.13@sha256:78aeb1eee876d1ebae5eef26402bd9f31112850d42016a240002d1da57203e15"},{"image":"ghcr.io/github/gh-aw-firewall/api-proxy:0.28.13","digest":"sha256:61f12dcff38eb008b645d87a5541763452f409d9040eb243718764944167b1a2","pinned_image":"ghcr.io/github/gh-aw-firewall/api-proxy:0.28.13@sha256:61f12dcff38eb008b645d87a5541763452f409d9040eb243718764944167b1a2"},{"image":"ghcr.io/github/gh-aw-firewall/squid:0.28.13","digest":"sha256:58a8dc5be3fbafeef7da0532c38bd9047f86bf1b3c4cfd7d9b7d8d28e80a2b56","pinned_image":"ghcr.io/github/gh-aw-firewall/squid:0.28.13@sha256:58a8dc5be3fbafeef7da0532c38bd9047f86bf1b3c4cfd7d9b7d8d28e80a2b56"},{"image":"ghcr.io/github/gh-aw-mcpg:v0.4.16","digest":"sha256:d7ed4c9e923f3c8be6c7e8f568a2af937f397a4dd1d2030dcd28a01fb34e705f","pinned_image":"ghcr.io/github/gh-aw-mcpg:v0.4.16@sha256:d7ed4c9e923f3c8be6c7e8f568a2af937f397a4dd1d2030dcd28a01fb34e705f"},{"image":"ghcr.io/github/gh-aw-node","digest":"sha256:bac2192f6374d6262116399b34fc5e143d576f82719e90a18261cae7480f4d4e","pinned_image":"ghcr.io/github/gh-aw-node@sha256:bac2192f6374d6262116399b34fc5e143d576f82719e90a18261cae7480f4d4e"},{"image":"ghcr.io/github/github-mcp-server:v1.11.0","digest":"sha256:fbec75de11c255213fa08d80fb166abe73d851fff631c51c0079872967720699","pinned_image":"ghcr.io/github/github-mcp-server:v1.11.0@sha256:fbec75de11c255213fa08d80fb166abe73d851fff631c51c0079872967720699"}],"has_pull_request_target":true,"mcp_servers":[{"name":"github","tools":["get_pull_request","get_pull_request_comments","get_pull_request_diff","get_pull_request_files","get_pull_request_review_comments","get_pull_request_reviews","get_pull_request_status","issue_read","list_issue_types","list_issues","list_pull_requests","pull_request_read","search_issues","search_pull_requests"]},{"name":"safeoutputs","tools":["add_comment","add_labels","missing_data","missing_tool","noop","remove_labels"]}]}
 # This file was automatically generated by gh-aw (v0.88.5). DO NOT EDIT. To debug this workflow, load the skill at https://github.com/github/gh-aw/blob/main/debug.md
 #
@@ -63,6 +63,10 @@ on:
   # skip-bots: # Skip-bots processed as bot check in pre-activation job
   # - dependabot # Skip-bots processed as bot check in pre-activation job
   # - renovate # Skip-bots processed as bot check in pre-activation job
+  # skip-roles: # Skip-roles processed as role check in pre-activation job
+  # - admin # Skip-roles processed as role check in pre-activation job
+  # - maintainer # Skip-roles processed as role check in pre-activation job
+  # - write # Skip-roles processed as role check in pre-activation job
   workflow_dispatch:
     inputs:
       aw_context:
@@ -1691,7 +1695,7 @@ jobs:
     env:
       GH_AW_RUNTIME_FEATURES: ${{ vars.GH_AW_RUNTIME_FEATURES }}
     outputs:
-      activated: ${{ steps.check_skip_bots.outputs.skip_bots_ok == 'true' }}
+      activated: ${{ steps.check_skip_roles.outputs.skip_roles_ok == 'true' && steps.check_skip_bots.outputs.skip_bots_ok == 'true' }}
       matched_command: ''
       setup-parent-span-id: ${{ steps.setup.outputs.parent-span-id || steps.setup.outputs.span-id }}
       setup-span-id: ${{ steps.setup.outputs.span-id }}
@@ -1709,6 +1713,21 @@ jobs:
           GH_AW_INFO_VERSION: "1.0.80"
           GH_AW_INFO_AWF_VERSION: "v0.28.13"
           GH_AW_INFO_ENGINE_ID: "copilot"
+      - name: Check skip-roles
+        id: check_skip_roles
+        uses: actions/github-script@3a2844b7e9c422d3c10d287c895573f7108da1b3 # v9.0.0
+        env:
+          GH_AW_SKIP_ROLES: "admin,maintainer,write"
+          GH_AW_WORKFLOW_NAME: "PR AI Slop Review"
+        with:
+          github-token: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}
+          script: |
+            const path = require('path');
+            const actionsDir = path.join(process.env.RUNNER_TEMP, 'gh-aw', 'actions');
+            const { setupGlobals } = require(path.join(actionsDir, 'setup_globals.cjs'));
+            setupGlobals(core, github, context, exec, io, getOctokit);
+            const { main } = require(path.join(actionsDir, 'check_skip_roles.cjs'));
+            await main();
       - name: Check skip-bots
         id: check_skip_bots
         uses: actions/github-script@3a2844b7e9c422d3c10d287c895573f7108da1b3 # v9.0.0

.github/workflows/pr-ai-slop-review.md

@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ description: |
 
 on:
   roles: all
+  skip-roles: [admin, maintainer, write]
   skip-bots: [dependabot, renovate]
   pull_request_target:
     types: [opened, reopened, synchronize]
@@ -81,7 +82,9 @@ Do not attempt to determine whether individual lines of code were written by a h
 ## Core Policy
 
 - A pull request should reference the issue it fixes when the repository workflow expects issue linkage.
+- The repository documents its contribution expectations (issue-first workflow, scope discipline, and ownership of AI-assisted changes) in [CONTRIBUTING.md](../../CONTRIBUTING.md) and [AGENTS.md](../../AGENTS.md). When judging whether issue linkage is required for a change of the given size, treat those documents as the repository's stated policy, not reviewer preference.
 - AI assistance by itself is not a problem.
+- An AI-assistance disclosure footer (for example `Assisted by: GPT-5.6 High`) is transparency, not evidence: it carries no negative weight, and it must never be treated as ownership evidence either.
 - Evaluate **ownership evidence**, not authorship provenance.
 - The strongest evidence comes from the relationship between the reported problem, repository-specific constraints, implementation scope, tests, and visible implementation iteration.
 - Domain Isolation: do not let the author's personal background, hobbies, professional titles, or unrelated external reputation influence the risk score. High-quality ownership evidence stands on its own; weak problem-to-solution reasoning cannot be excused by status.
@@ -102,6 +105,7 @@ Use GitHub tools to inspect the triggering pull request in full:
 - Pull request title and body
 - Linked issue references in the body, title, metadata, timeline, and cross-links when available
 - Whether the issue or relevant problem discussion existed before implementation or PR creation
+- Linked issue authorship and creation time relative to the pull request; whether the issue carries maintainer triage labels or third-party engagement
 - Commit history and commit authors
 - PR author association, repository role signals, and visible ownership history when available
 - Changed files and diff shape
@@ -132,10 +136,11 @@ These signals directly concern weak problem-to-solution ownership and should car
 - Scope Drift: the PR claims to fix a specific bug or implement a specific request but touches unrelated modules, configuration, documentation, UI, services, or infrastructure without explaining why those changes are necessary.
 - A broad feature touching multiple subsystems without a pre-existing issue, design discussion, or other visible problem definition.
 - Implementation-first linkage: the referenced issue was created only after the PR was opened, after an AI-slop review comment, or after maintainers requested issue linkage.
+- Linkage Laundering: the linked issue was authored by the PR author shortly before implementation, carries no maintainer triage or third-party engagement, and reads as a restatement of the diff rather than an independent problem report. Such linkage satisfies the form of issue linkage but not its substance.
 - Metadata-only remediation: the author edits the PR body, adds a retroactive issue, comments an explanation, closes/reopens the PR, or otherwise retriggers the workflow without changing the implementation or providing independently meaningful ownership evidence.
 - Large-scale mechanical edits with little behavioral justification.
 - Random renames, comment rewrites, formatting churn, or same-meaning text changes that do not support the stated fix.
-- New tests that are generic, padded, or not clearly connected to the reported issue.
+- Test or defensive-code padding: bulk-added or generated-looking test files, speculative coverage, and heavy defensive programming (redundant guards, error handling for hypothetical failure modes) whose volume is not justified by the reported issue.
 - Draft or vague "ongoing optimization" style PRs with broad churn and a weak problem statement.
 - A substantial implementation whose changed areas cannot be explained by the stated problem.
 
@@ -166,6 +171,7 @@ AI-agent branch names, bot authorship, or explicit AI-tool usage must not determ
 These signals demonstrate problem-to-solution ownership and should carry substantial weight:
 
 - Clear issue linkage with a concrete bug report or feature request that existed before the PR was opened.
+- Independent linkage origin: the issue predates the implementation and was authored by someone other than the PR author, or carries maintainer triage labels or third-party engagement.
 - Visible prior discussion predating implementation.
 - Tight file scope that directly matches the linked issue.
 - Tests that directly reproduce the reported regression or validate the requested behavior.
@@ -404,6 +410,7 @@ In particular:
 - A deliberately inserted revert or cleanup commit is not meaningful iteration unless it reflects an actual change in reasoning or implementation.
 - A long explanation is not ownership evidence unless it contains repository-specific reasoning.
 - Creating an issue immediately before or after implementation is weaker evidence than a problem report or discussion that genuinely predates the implementation.
+- An issue authored by the PR author is not automatically weaker — self-reported bugs fixed by their reporter are welcome. Weigh substance: genuine problem detail (reproduction steps, environment, logs) versus a one-line echo of the implementation.
 - Adding tests is not a strong counter-signal unless the tests directly validate the reported behavior.
 - Reviewer interaction matters primarily when it changes implementation, scope, assumptions, or reasoning.
 - PR templates, polished prose, and structured checklists should neither strongly increase nor decrease risk by themselves.