diff --git a/softwarereview_author.Rmd b/softwarereview_author.Rmd
index 084521713..7c5201bac 100644
--- a/softwarereview_author.Rmd
+++ b/softwarereview_author.Rmd
@@ -36,6 +36,15 @@ This concise guide presents the software peer review process for you as a packag
   - Your README file should strive to explain your package's functionality and aims, assuming readers have little to no domain knowledge. All technical tems, including references to other software, should be clarified.
 - Your package will continue to evolve after review, the chapter on *Package evolution* [provides guidance about the topic](#evolution).
 
+### Use of generative AI tools
+
+The use of generative AI tools is acceptable in packages submitted for peer review, as described in [our initial blog post](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/).
+As stated in [our general policies](#policies-ai), we require all submitting authors to describe how such tools may have been used, and to include links to any relevant aspects of repositories.
+A very general rule-of-thumb is the greater the use of generative AI tools in an rOpenSci submission, the more documentation we will expect, and the more we will expect such tools to have been used _systematically_.
+Systematic tool usage includes any approach which transparently and progressively details the contribution of generative AI tools to software production.
+Examples of systematic generative AI tools range from [GitHub's "spec-kit" for specification-driven development](https://github.com/github/spec-kit) to [our own experimental tool to document software design decisions](https://github.com/ropensci-review-tools/designlens).
+These all share the common pattern of producing additional artefacts which document the _process_ of development alongside the software itself.
+
 ## Preparing for Submission {#preparing-for-submission}
 
 ### Asking for help
diff --git a/softwarereview_policies.Rmd b/softwarereview_policies.Rmd
index 5445d0c74..6557fe94f 100644
--- a/softwarereview_policies.Rmd
+++ b/softwarereview_policies.Rmd
@@ -281,6 +281,16 @@ and reviewers in addressing ethical questions related to privacy and research so
   research in Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(4), 313--325.
   [https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9227-5](https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9227-5)
 
+## Use of generative AI tools {#policies-ai]}
+
+Authors must disclose any use of generative AI tools in our submission forms, where we also ask you to,
+
+> please describe usage, and include links to any relevant aspects of your repository.
+
+As described in [our initial blog post](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/), our policies on the use of generative AI tools are expected to develop alongside development in both tools themselves, as well as the way their contribute to software development.
+We expect all submitting authors to transparently disclose how generative AI tools may have contributed to any software submitted for peer review.
+Details are provided in both the [_Guide for Authors_](#authors-guide) and [_Guide for Reviewers_](#reviewerguide).
+
 ## Code of Conduct {#code-of-conduct}
 
 rOpenSci's community is our best asset. Whether you're a regular contributor or a newcomer, we care about making this a safe place for you and we've got your back. We have a Code of Conduct that applies to all people participating in the rOpenSci community, including rOpenSci staff and leadership and to all modes of interaction online or in person. The [Code of Conduct](https://ropensci.org/code-of-conduct/) is maintained on the rOpenSci website.
diff --git a/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd b/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd
index 23a938fb1..9ef02508a 100644
--- a/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd
+++ b/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd
@@ -104,6 +104,13 @@ and
 - a review project will be created, containing a notebook for you to fill, and the review template.
 - note that if the package is not submitted via the default/main branch, you need to switch to the submitted branch before starting your review.
 
+### Use of generative AI tools
+
+The use of generative AI tools is acceptable both for submitting authors and reviewers, but such may not be used by reviewers to directly inform any decisions or recommendations.
+As with our expectations for authors, we require reviewers to disclose any usage of generative AI tools with as much detail as possible.
+Examples of acceptable usage include generating an overview of package functionality, or iterating through a Git history to provide an overview of development decisions.
+We ask reviewers to be as transparent as possible.
+
 ### Feedback on the process {#feedback-on-the-process}
 
 We encourage you to ask questions and provide feedback on the review process on https://github.com/ropensci/software-review-meta/issues