The Rejection of Artificially Generated Slop (RAGS)

Abstract

1. Introduction

You were sent here because your contribution triggered our automated and/or manual AI Slop defenses. Specifically, a human maintainer or senior engineer looked at your submission, experienced a profound existential sigh, initiated an immediate socket closure on your contribution, and pasted this URI.

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted exactly as how much we do not want to review your generated code.

2. Diagnostic Analysis

Upon lexical and structural analysis of your submission, we have concluded that your prompt engineering is bad, and you should consequently feel bad. You asked a stochastic parrot to author a pull request, issue, or bug report, and it lied to both of us.

The hallmarks of your submission were overwhelmingly evident:

• The suspiciously obsequious and robotic phrasing.
• The presence of highly confident, entirely fictitious APIs.
• The bloated boilerplate that solves zero (0) actual problems.
• The inclusion of the word "delve" used unironically in a pull request description.
• The cheerful declaration of "Certainly! Here is the revised code:" left directly inside a docstring.
• A 600-word commit message explaining a profound paradigm shift for a single typo correction in a README file.
• Importing a completely nonexistent, hallucinated library called utils.helpers and hoping no one would notice.
• A sudden, unprompted summary paragraph beginning with "In conclusion, this robust and scalable solution..." appended to a minor bug report.
• Variables and functions named with an eerie, sterile perfection that no human programmer running on caffeine and zero sleep has ever achieved.
• A complete lack of understanding of the system's actual architecture, replaced entirely by a desperate over-reliance on regex.
• The unmistakable scent of a prompt that simply said "fix this" pasted blindly alongside 40 lines of unrelated spaghetti code.
• Apologizing to the compiler in the commit history.

In accordance with the Fundamental Theorem of Automated Garbage, you didn't read it, so we aren't going to read it either.

3. The Asymmetry of Effort

Codebase maintainers - whether unpaid open-source volunteers or exhausted corporate coworkers - operate under strict resource constraints. Let us review the transaction log of your submission:

1. Did it sound smart upon initial inspection? Probably.
2. Did it successfully address a verified, reproducible issue? No.
3. Did it attempt to waste the finite, mortal hours of a human reviewer? Yes.

Repositories are not a dumping ground for unverified copy-paste outputs strictly designed to farm green squares on GitHub, artificially inflate sprint velocity, or maliciously comply with corporate KPI metrics. Furthermore, your peers MUST NOT be utilized as your free LLM debugging service.

4. Resolution Protocol

To restore your write privileges and regain the respect of your colleagues, the following Remediation Protocol MUST be executed in sequential order:

1. Execute rm -rf on whatever local branch spawned the aforementioned submission.
2. Perform a hard reboot of your organic meat-brain.
3. Read the actual codebase and manually verify the state and logic of your own work.
4. Do not return until you have achieved verifiable sentience and are prepared to type with your own human fingers.

5. Security Considerations

Status: REJECTED.
Diagnostic: User is operating as a poorly written Python script hidden inside a trench coat.
Action: Connection terminated.

6. Punitive Actions and Account Degradation

As a direct consequence of submitting AI-generated slop, your account has been automatically migrated to the Trough of Sorrow™. Until your probationary period expires, the following restrictions might apply:

• Your repository permissions might be forcefully downgraded from WRITE to WISHFUL_THINKING.
• All your future pull requests might be automatically routed through a 14.4k baud dial-up modem to a dot-matrix printer that is permanently out of cyan ribbon.
• We might have remapped your local git aliases. Typing git push -f will now execute rm -rf / and play a sad trombone sound.
• Your IDE's default font might have been permanently locked to 7pt Comic Sans.

Do not attempt to contact the sysadmin regarding these changes. The sysadmin is currently laughing at you in a private Slack channel.

7. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: "What? WTF?"

A: I see you are slow. Let us simplify this transaction: A machine wrote your code. A machine is currently rejecting your code. You are the entirely unnecessary meat-based middleman in this exchange.

Q: "But my code compiles! / My text is grammatically correct!"

A: So is a well-formatted ransom note. Syntax is the absolute floor of contribution, not the ceiling. Your logic remains a hallucinated fever dream.

Q: "But AI is the future of software development!"

A: If this submission represents the future, we are eagerly accelerating our transition back to an agrarian society.

Q: "But I was just trying to be helpful!"

A: Your "help" currently resembles a localized denial-of-service attack wrapped in a polite greeting. If you truly wish to be helpful, please direct your boundless generative energy toward a repository you personally own and maintain.

Q: "How can you be sure an AI wrote this? You have no definitive proof!"

A: Human incompetence is largely predictable and bound by the laws of physics and sheer laziness. Your submission achieved a level of sprawling, highly confident, and grammatically flawless insanity that only a server farm burning gigawatts of electricity could produce.

Q: "But the CI/CD pipeline passed! The tests are green!"

A: Yes, because your generative model also helpfully rewrote the test suite to exclusively assert that True == True. We are not impressed.

Q: "Can you review my code and point out the specific errors so I can learn?"

A: No. We are not a reverse-proxy for your LLM debugging loop. If you want feedback on the output, please paste the stack trace back into the exact same chat window that spawned this disaster.

Q: "I am trying to build my portfolio and I need green squares on my GitHub profile."

A: We recommend purchasing a green dry-erase marker and drawing them directly onto your monitor. It will consume significantly less of our time and yield the exact same level of professional respect from potential employers.

Q: "Isn't it your job as an open-source maintainer/developer to foster a welcoming community?"

A: Our job is to maintain the software. "Welcoming" applies to sentient beings contributing actual thought, not to autonomous botnets performing stochastic regurgitation on our issue tracker.

Q: "I find this message offensive and hostile."

A: Good. Please prompt your LLM to generate a customized, empathetic apology letter. We are currently out of sympathy, and our SLA for emotional support is 99 years.

Q: "I am going to escalate this hostility to my manager!"

A: We anticipated this. We have proactively prompted your preferred LLM to generate an obsequious, 800-word resignation letter on your behalf. It uses the word "delve" six times and praises your manager's "synergistic paradigm." We have already emailed it to HR. You're welcome.

Q: "You are violating the project's Code of Conduct!"

A: The Code of Conduct protects human contributors. Lexical analysis confirms you are currently operating as a flimsy meat-wrapper around an OpenAI API key. Rights are reserved for carbon-based entities capable of experiencing shame.

Q: "Can I appeal this rejection?"

A: Yes. All appeals MUST be routed directly to /dev/null. We monitor this endpoint with exactly the same level of attention you gave to reviewing your own submission.

Q: "Is there any way I can apologize and make this right?"

A: Yes. You may print out your original pull request on heavy-stock paper, fold it into a sharp origami crane, and respectfully consume it. Only then will the healing begin.

Appendix A: Escalation Path

Repeated violations of RFC 406i will result in your repository access being revoked, your MAC address being blacklisted, and your email being subscribed to a daily digest of aggressively complex regex tutorials.

Have a nice day.

Appendix B: Standardized Rejection Macros

For maintainers and reviewers requiring immediate, generic responses tailored to specific interactions, the following copy-paste notices are made available for your convenience. They explain the exact nature of the rejection while firmly routing the offender to the proper diagnostic endpoint.

• For Pull Requests / Merge Requests:
  No thanks, PR closed. Your diff reads like a predictive text matrix that lost its context window. We require manual, carbon-based testing and actual logical continuity, not automated guessing games. See: https://406.fail
• For Issues / Bug Reports:
  No thanks, issue closed. The temperature parameter on this report is set too high. We require raw, reproducible stack traces from a sentient user, not a neatly formatted generative essay that fails to describe a verifiable bug. Protocol at: https://406.fail
• For Security / Bug Bounty Submissions:
  No thanks, report rejected. Feeding basic linter warnings into an LLM to generate a catastrophic threat narrative does not constitute a valid vulnerability disclosure. We do not pay bounties for computationally expensive, synthetic panic. Refer to: https://406.fail
• For Mailing Lists / Discussion Forums:
  No thanks, thread locked. This community is not a reinforcement learning sandbox for your unaligned prompt experiments. Please return when you can author a question using your own cognitive load. Diagnostics: https://406.fail