diff --git a/contributingGuides/CONTRIBUTING.md b/contributingGuides/CONTRIBUTING.md
index 95ffa8992189..ba66c8f1e806 100644
--- a/contributingGuides/CONTRIBUTING.md
+++ b/contributingGuides/CONTRIBUTING.md
@@ -202,15 +202,16 @@ This helps future investigators understand the history and current status of err
 17. Upon submission of a PR, please include a numbered list of explicit testing steps for each platform (Web, iOS, Android, and Mobile Web) to confirm the fix works as expected and there are no regressions.
 18. Please add a screenshot of the app running on each platform (Web, iOS, Android, Mobile Web).
 19. Please review the [PR Authoring & Reviewing Best Practices](./PR_AUTHOR_REVIEWER_BEST_PRACTICES.md) for standards on PR titles, testing responsibilities, and the review workflow.
+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](./philosophies/AI-REVIEWER.md) for more detail.
 
 ### Completing the final checklist
-20. Once your PR has been deployed to production, a checklist will automatically be commented in the GH issue. You're required to complete the steps that have your name mentioned before payment will be issued.
-21. The items requiring your completion consist of:
+21. Once your PR has been deployed to production, a checklist will automatically be commented in the GH issue. You're required to complete the steps that have your name mentioned before payment will be issued.
+22. The items requiring your completion consist of:
     1. Proposing steps to take for a regression test to ensure the bug doesn't occur again (For information on how to successfully complete this, head [here](https://github.com/Expensify/App/blob/main/contributingGuides/REGRESSION_TEST_BEST_PRACTICES.md)).
     2. Identifying and noting the offending PR that caused the bug (if any).
     3. Commenting on the offending PR to note the bug it caused and why (if applicable).
     4. Starting a conversation on if any additional steps should be taken to prevent further bugs similar to the one fixed from occurring again.
-22. Once the above items have been successfully completed, then payments will begin to be issued.
+23. Once the above items have been successfully completed, then payments will begin to be issued.
 
 ### Timeline expectations and asking for help along the way
 - If you have made a change to your pull request and are ready for another review, leave a comment that says "Updated" on the pull request  itself.
diff --git a/contributingGuides/philosophies/AI-REVIEWER.md b/contributingGuides/philosophies/AI-REVIEWER.md
index 18107f756808..f91a0f0c2eb8 100644
--- a/contributingGuides/philosophies/AI-REVIEWER.md
+++ b/contributingGuides/philosophies/AI-REVIEWER.md
@@ -25,7 +25,10 @@ As the codebase and contributor base grow, AI reviewers help maintain consistent
 
 ## Guiding Principles
 
-These are recommendations for working effectively with AI reviewers, not strict requirements.
+These are recommendations for working effectively with AI reviewers, not strict requirements — with one exception: responding to AI reviewer comments is required, as described below.
+
+### Always respond to AI reviewer comments
+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.
 
 ### Treat AI feedback as suggestions
 AI reviewers provide automated feedback to assist human reviewers, but their output is not infallible. Contributors and reviewers should evaluate each piece of feedback on its merits rather than blindly accepting or rejecting it.