docs: ask for AI disclosure on comments too

[maxisbey]

The AI-assisted contributions section of CONTRIBUTING.md asked for disclosure in "the PR or issue description", which reads as if AI-written comments don't need it. They do, so this widens the wording to cover comments as well.

Types of changes

• Documentation update

Checklist

• I have read the MCP Documentation
• My code follows the repository's style guidelines
• I have added or updated documentation as needed

_{AI Disclaimer}

[cubic-dev-ai]

No issues found across 1 file

_{Re-trigger cubic}

[claude]

LGTM — a one-line wording tweak to the AI-tooling disclosure guidance in CONTRIBUTING.md.

What was reviewed: the single changed line in CONTRIBUTING.md (line 37), which broadens where AI use can be disclosed from "PR or issue description" to "PR description, issue, or comment". No code, config, or tooling is touched; checked that the surrounding disclosure/ownership bullets still read consistently with the new wording — they do.

Extended reasoning...

Overview

The diff is a single-line edit to /home/claude/python-sdk/CONTRIBUTING.md: the "Disclose it" bullet in the AI-tooling section now reads "One line in the PR description, issue, or comment" instead of "One line in the PR or issue description". It is a pure documentation/policy-wording change with no source, test, build, or CI impact.

Security risks

None. No code paths, dependencies, workflows, or credentials are involved — the change cannot affect runtime behavior, the release pipeline, or repository automation. The referenced CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md relationship is only that AGENTS.md points contributors at CONTRIBUTING.md; the edited sentence contains no instructions that could redirect tooling in a harmful way.

Level of scrutiny

Minimal scrutiny is appropriate: this is a trivial prose adjustment to contributor guidance. The main things worth confirming were that the diff is genuinely limited to this one line (it is — git diff shows exactly one hunk) and that the new sentence is coherent with the rest of the section (it is; the other bullets about owning changes and keeping a human in the loop are unchanged and unaffected).

Other factors

The bug-hunting run exited on dry_streak with zero findings and zero ruled-out candidates, which matches expectations for a docs-only change of this size. There are no outstanding reviewer objections in the timeline and no prior review from this bot to reconcile. A human maintainer look would add nothing here, so approving is safe.