Update contributing guidelines on the use of GenAI/AI agents

[mpaiao]

Description

This idea was inspired by a similar pull request in FATES. This has become an issue on other models, so I think we must think of these guidelines. I drafted some text, but suggestions are very welcome.

Collaborators

@glemieux, who originally submitted similar guidelines to FATES and @adrifoster, who provided great feedback on the first version of the guidelines.

Types of changes

• Hot fix (emergential bug fix to make ED2 run again)
• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Other (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Changes in Settings, Input Files or Output Files

• This feature requires changes in ED2IN
• This feature requires changes in the XML parameter file
• This feature requires changes in other input files
• This feature will change output files

Expectation of Answer Changes:

• No changes expected (bit-for-bit compatibility)
• Changes expected with specific configurations (see details below)
• Changes expected in all simulations (see details below)

Checklist:

• My change requires a change to the documentation.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• ED2 Wiki update:

Testing :

• All new and existing tests passed.

[mpaiao]

@xiangtaoxu @mdietze, during the FATES software meeting, @adrifoster made some excellent points on the original text on GenAI (many thanks, @adrifoster!).

She mentioned that the original suggestion I had proposed was coming across as too disapproving on using GenAI. Upon reading it again, I agree with her, and that was not the intention, I just wanted to know if GenAI was used and to what extent it was used. I rewrote the text, please take a look at it again if you have a chance. Thanks!

[xiangtaoxu]

Thanks, Marcos. This looks great to me. At some point, we should talk about strategies to use agentic AI for code development - they are pretty helpful at this stage already (write better annotated codes in general and made little typo mistakes)

[mpaiao]

Thanks @xiangtaoxu, and feel free to edit the guidelines to elaborate more on agentic AI too. This PR is supposed to be an all hands discussion and the merged version should be something we all agree on.

My original thought when I made this PR is that all code must be revised by two people at least, typically the contributor themself and one external person. And that contributions to the code, discussions and documentation should be submitted by actual people. I am totally fine with people (myself included) using different AI tools to get work done more efficiently, the only thing I would like to avoid is taking AI products and incorporating them into the code or documentation without some quality assessment first.