docs: add AI usage guide

CONTRIBUTING.md

@@ -4,6 +4,8 @@ Thank you for contributing to the Agentic AI Foundation (AAIF) Taxonomy & Landsc
 
 This repository maintains the horizontal, shared vocabulary (Taxonomy) and the global market ecosystem map (Landscape) across all active technical working groups.
 
+If you use AI assistance while drafting or reviewing contributed content, follow the [AI Usage Guide](docs/ai-usage-guide.md).
+
 ---
 
 ## 1. Roles & Governance

docs/ai-usage-guide.md

@@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
+# AI Usage Guide
+
+This guide explains how contributors should use AI assistance when drafting, editing, or reviewing content for the AAIF Taxonomy & Landscape Workstream.
+
+It applies to:
+
+- taxonomy terms and definitions
+- landscape entries
+- pull request descriptions
+- issue proposals
+- documentation changes
+- review summaries
+
+AI assistance can help contributors draft and organize material, but it does not replace human review, domain-editor judgment, or workstream consensus.
+
+## Principles
+
+AI-assisted contributions should be:
+
+- human-owned
+- source-checkable
+- vendor-neutral
+- pre-competitive
+- privacy-preserving
+- aligned with repository schemas and contribution rules
+- clear about uncertainty
+
+The contributor is responsible for every submitted sentence, field, link, and claim.
+
+## Acceptable Uses
+
+AI tools may be used to:
+
+- turn rough notes into clearer prose
+- suggest alternative wording for neutral definitions
+- summarize public sources that the contributor independently checks
+- identify duplicate or look-alike terms for human review
+- draft pull request summaries from the actual diff
+- improve grammar, structure, and accessibility
+- generate checklist drafts for reviewers to refine
+
+AI output should be treated as a draft. It must be reviewed against the repository, public source material, and the relevant workgroup context before submission.
+
+## Prohibited Uses
+
+Do not use AI tools to:
+
+- invent sources, references, approvals, affiliations, or working-group consensus
+- generate final definitions without domain-editor review
+- merge look-alike terms without explicit working-group sign-off
+- create vendor-favorable or marketing language
+- submit private, confidential, or member-only content into external AI tools
+- paste credentials, personal data, private mailing-list content, or private Discord content into AI tools
+- bypass review requirements in `CONTRIBUTING.md`
+- claim AAIF, Linux Foundation, workstream, or maintainer endorsement without explicit public evidence
+
+If a claim cannot be verified from public evidence or approved workstream material, do not submit it as fact.
+
+## Source Handling
+
+When AI assistance is used with source material:
+
+1. Prefer public sources.
+2. Keep links to the sources that shaped the contribution.
+3. Verify the source directly instead of trusting an AI summary.
+4. Quote sparingly and only when the wording itself matters.
+5. Convert source-specific wording into neutral taxonomy language.
+6. Mark unresolved questions in the PR or issue instead of guessing.
+
+For landscape entries, contributors should verify the project name, repository URL, license, website, and category directly from source repositories or official project pages.
+
+For taxonomy terms, contributors should verify that the term is not already present and that it does not erase a distinct working-group meaning.
+
+## Human Review Requirements
+
+Before submitting AI-assisted content, the contributor should check:
+
+- Does the change match the repository schema?
+- Is every factual claim verified?
+- Is the language vendor-neutral and pre-competitive?
+- Are working-group boundaries respected?
+- Are aliases true synonyms rather than adjacent concepts?
+- Are related or contrasting terms called out clearly?
+- Does the contribution avoid private or confidential material?
+- Does the PR explain where human judgment is still needed?
+
+Domain Editors and maintainers can request changes, additional source links, or removal of AI-assisted text that is not sufficiently grounded.
+
+## Disclosure In Pull Requests
+
+If AI assistance materially shaped a contribution, include a short note in the PR body.
+
+Example:
+
+```text
+AI assistance note: AI assistance was used to draft or revise wording. I reviewed the final text against the repository schema, public source material, and the contribution guidelines before submitting.
+```
+
+If AI was used only for spelling, grammar, or formatting, a disclosure is optional unless a maintainer asks for it.
+
+## Review Checklist
+
+Reviewers can use this checklist when AI assistance is disclosed or suspected:
+
+- [ ] The contribution has a human author taking responsibility for the final text.
+- [ ] Public sources or repository context support the factual claims.
+- [ ] No private, confidential, credential, or personal data is included.
+- [ ] Definitions remain neutral and do not promote a vendor or product.
+- [ ] AI-generated wording has been edited into the workstream's voice.
+- [ ] The contribution does not imply unearned consensus or endorsement.
+- [ ] Unresolved questions are marked for human review.
+
+## When To Pause
+
+Pause and ask for maintainer or domain-editor guidance when:
+
+- the AI output changes the meaning of a term
+- the content appears to resolve a working-group disagreement
+- the wording could affect compliance, security, antitrust, or legal interpretation
+- the source material is private or member-only
+- the contribution depends on a claim that cannot be verified publicly
+
+The safest path is to submit a smaller, source-backed proposal and let the workstream review it openly.