Some vibe-coded packages are awesome, others might be less so, so it’s not vibe-coding per se that’s the issue.
Vibe-coding has the potential to create code hallucinations. I think these are less likely to appear in code written entirely by humans. (Humans have plenty of other ways to include bad code!)
A recent example: A few weeks ago, a package was submitted for registration in the General registry. It contained a number of hallucinations. Some non-existent Luxor functions were being called simply because they were “needed” at that point; some existing Luxor functions were being called with incorrectly typed arguments, presumably because the function “ought to” take information in that particular format.
In all cases, the code would have errored if run. It had obviously not been visually checked by a human with sufficent knowledge, or tested for run-time errors.
Luxor’s a pretty simple package, and there’s a reasonable anount of documentation for it, but Claude was still able to hallucinate some sloppy code. The errors were easily spotted by a human familiar with this particular package, but probably wouldn’t have been noticed by the author supervising the agent’s activities. I suppose the human trusts the agent to do the right thing everywhere…
So my take is that new packages coded with an Agent could usefully be marked as such (although it’s often easy to tell), and checked for hallucinations.
But who by? Volunteers who don’t want their own packages to be the apparent cause of poor user experiences down the line might be happy to help review new packages that rely on their code. Otherwise, it’s the community’s job to continue to maintain the ecosystem and monitor proposed additions.