I think OP wanted to have a proof that the submitter can demonstrate understanding of both the system and the code in the PR. So how would a guidance solve that? Also OP didn't want to ban them I believe
> LLMs are really good at writing these. IF they think this will prove the author is human, they're mistaken.
That is not my general experience. LLM explanations of code tend to add extra specifics that are incorrect, and the whole thing looks like LLM output (lots of short sentences, overly cheery, too many dumb lists, and being overly repetitive).
Or course, a human could read the LLM output and then synthesise it in their own words, but they could also just read the code. I doubt someone will be able to convincingly act like they know what LLM code does just by consulting an LLM.
If your patch took you no time or effort to write and you took no interest in what it does, why should I (as a maintainer) bother looking at it and maintain it for the next 10 years? In any other circumstances we would rightfully call this spam and see it as a socially hostile activity.
