QGIS has accepted a policy barring code contributions made with LLM, AI or agent assistance to its main software repository. The project's proposal record shows the change was approved and merged on October 7. Its reach is narrower than a ban on using AI in QGIS: the policy text names code contributions to one repository, while leaving some boundaries of “assisted” undefined.

The big change

  • What changed: QGIS replaced its earlier AI-tool contribution policy with a categorical prohibition on LLM-, AI- or agent-assisted code contributions to github.com/qgis/qgis.
  • Why it matters: A contributor whose code falls under that rule may face code reversion and sanctions on contributor rights if the project later discovers prohibited assistance. The proposal does not describe an automatic detection or enforcement process.
  • What remains open: The adopted sentence gives no examples for AI-backed autocomplete, research or review, and it does not expressly govern bug reports, discussion comments or other QGIS repositories.

What the adopted text says

The policy's one-paragraph rule covers “LLM, AI or agent assisted code contributions” in the main QGIS repository. It says subsequent discovery of AI, LLM or agent-based assistance can lead to code reversion and contributor-rights sanctions. The wording identifies possible consequences, not a record that QGIS has imposed them on any particular contributor.

The record matters because the proposal title, “No ai contributions permitted,” is broader than its operative sentence. That sentence specifies code contributions and the qgis/qgis repository. It does not set a project-wide rule for people using AI features while working with QGIS software. Nor does it say whether the same restriction covers the separate enhancement-proposals repository or non-code submissions. Those questions surfaced in the pull-request discussion, but the merged text did not enumerate them.

The accepted change is an update to the repository's AI-tool policy file, which still has qep-408 in its filename. The October 7 pull request was described as QEP 428 and received an Accepted label before it was merged. The filename and proposal number refer to the same policy change in this record.

Why contributors disputed the boundary

Supporters described a review-capacity problem. In the proposal discussion, contributor Haubourg said externally generated submissions can exceed what maintainers can review seriously. A contributor who had opened AI-assisted regression fixes said the experience could create an illusion of competence in a complex codebase and strain trust between reviewer and author. Those are participants' explanations of the policy, not measured findings about every AI-assisted patch.

Others asked what counts as assistance. One contributor listed autocomplete, using an LLM to understand unfamiliar code, translation and a search result with an AI answer as examples that the short rule does not sort. Tim Sutton, a QGIS Project Steering Committee member, replied that he viewed compliance as whether the contributor had written the code in good conscience. His comment gives insight into intent, but it is not an amendment to the adopted sentence. The proposal author, Nyall Dawson, said the strict starting point could be reconsidered case by case; that is a possible future discussion, not an approved exception.

For a contributor preparing a pull request today, the reliable boundary is the written one: code offered to the main QGIS repository cannot be assisted by an LLM, AI system or agent workflow. The source record does not establish how QGIS will distinguish borderline tools or enforce the rule in practice. BIG CHANGE reviewed the policy and its public discussion; we did not submit code or test enforcement.

Sources & further reading

  • QGIS policy text, version 2.0: the exact one-paragraph prohibition, repository scope and possible sanctions. The file displays a September 24, 2026 revision date.
  • QGIS Enhancement Proposals pull request #387: proposal discussion, October 7 approval, Accepted label and merge. Participants' comments describe reasons and unresolved scope questions; they are not themselves policy text.
  • QGIS developer mailing-list discussion: earlier steering-committee framing of the proposed repository policy and its enforcement difficulty. It predates the accepted wording.