Update contributing guidelines Docs to require responding to ai reviews

[FitseTLT]

Explanation of Change

New contributors routinely leave AI reviewer (Codex Review) comments unanswered, and the guidelines don't stop it. The requirement was written down in only one place — PR_AUTHOR_REVIEWER_BEST_PRACTICES.md — which is a secondary doc most first-time contributors never open, and the AI Reviewer philosophy doc actively undercut it by opening its guiding principles with "These are recommendations for working effectively with AI reviewers, not strict requirements."

This states the requirement in CONTRIBUTING.md as a numbered step in the "Submit your pull request for final review" list that new contributors actually walk through, carves it out in AI-REVIEWER.md as the one strict requirement among the guiding principles. The rule is that applying AI feedback stays optional but responding to each comment with 👍/👎 and a short explanation is required, so reviewers can tell a considered dismissal from an overlooked comment.

Fixed Issues

$ N/A — process/documentation change requested by @mallenexpensify , no linked issue
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

N/A — documentation-only change, no app behavior is affected.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as tests

QA Steps

Same as tests

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

• I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
  • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
  • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
  • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
  • I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
  • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
  • I tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • Android: Native
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
• I responded to every comment left by our AI reviewers (e.g. Codex Review) with 👍 or 👎 and a short explanation. Applying the feedback is optional, responding to it is not (see AI Reviewer philosophy)
• I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
• If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • A similar style doesn't already exist
  • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))
• If new assets were added or existing ones were modified, I verified that:
  • The assets are optimized and compressed (for SVG files, run npm run compress-svg)
  • The assets load correctly across all supported platforms.
• If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
• If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
• If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
• If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
• If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
  • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
• I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user flow.
• If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.

[melvin-bot]

@carlosmiceli Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

[mallenexpensify]

I'm 👍. There's a bit of repetition between the two but, since there in different parts of the doc and we want people to respond, I'm cool with it.

PR authors must respond to every comment left by an AI reviewer before requesting final review. React with 👍 when applying the feedback or 👎 when not, and leave a short comment explaining the reasoning either way. Acting on the feedback is optional; responding to it is not. Silence leaves human reviewers unable to tell whether a point was considered and dismissed or simply missed, which is the most common gap we see in PRs from new contributors.

and

20. You must respond to every comment left by our AI reviewers (e.g. Codex Review) before your PR is considered ready for review. React with 👍 if you are applying the feedback or 👎 if you are not, and leave a short comment explaining your reasoning either way. You are not required to make every change an AI reviewer suggests — its feedback is advisory — but you are required to respond to each comment so that reviewers can see it was considered rather than overlooked. See the AI Reviewer philosophy for more detail.