Looks like some funky line breaking?

I had it to break after 120 characters.

But now that I read the devguide's Rst markup doc, seems like we're supposed to break at 80 characters.
https://devguide.python.org/documentation/markup/#use-of-whitespace

Should we add another bullet point along the lines of:
" - Keep backwards compatibility with prior releases in mind. Existing tests may be ensuring specific API behaviors are maintained."

perhaps a follow paragraph after this list:

"Pay close attention to your AI's testing behavior. Have conversations with your AI model about the appropriateness of changes given these principles before you propose them."

I would rather that we not personify the tools @gpshead. Perhaps:

"Pay close attention to an AI tool's recommendations for testing changes. Provide input about Python's testing principles before requests to the AI tool's model. Always review the AI tool's output before opening a pull request or issue."

I'd like to see this worded in more general terms rather than using such a specific example (older models did this a lot more than 2026's). What this is really getting at is that we want people to be cautious about reward hacking rather than addressing the actual underlying problem in a backwards compatible manner.

maybe something along the lines of:

"Some models have had a tendency of reward hacking by making incorrect changes to fix their limited context view of the problem at hand rather than focusing on what is correct. Including altering or bypassing existing tests. Such changes do not represent a real fix and are not acceptable."

I think this can be generalized beyond AI tools to humans as well.

"Some AI tools may provide responses to a user's prompt that diverge from recommended practices since the AI tool may not have been trained on the full context of the problem and recommended practices. Sometimes, due to limited context, the tool will alter or bypass existing tests. Such changes do not offer a real fix and are not acceptable."

I'd avoid using the word "trained" as that has a specific meaning in the AI field that isn't really the reason. Focusing on "context" is good as that's the important and widely known term used in AI.

Just "... the AI tool may not have the full context of the problem and recommended practices. You need to provide it that.".

I've never really liked the "Sometimes, due to limited context, the tool will alter or bypass existing tests." example as it is dated for anyone using the latest models (not everyone is... an entirely different access problem that thus makes general purpose vague docs like this hard). But it felt like we should keep some form of an example undesirable behavior from an insufficiently guided model in here in order to make the more important "Such changes do not offer a real fix and are not acceptable." be tied to a concrete example. So absent clearly better ideas, and knowing some users will be using lesser models, it still fits.

I'd avoid using the word "trained" as that has a specific meaning in the AI field that isn't really the reason. Focusing on "context" is good as that's the important and widely known term used in AI.

Agreed.

Proposing:

Due to limited context, an AI tool may alter or bypass existing tests. Such changes do not offer a real fix and are not acceptable."