Yes! As I’ve said repeatedly:
The terms “vibe-coding” and “slop” are defined in our guidelines!
No, you are not responding to what was actually said, or what the actual policies are. You’re responding to a perceived “absolute position” that does not exists, with an apparent definition of “vibe-coding” that in no way matches the definition of vibe-coding that exists in the guidelines. Can you look at what the actual guidelines are and what has been said about their intent in this and the previous thread, and stop arguing against strawmen?
No, that is not what was said! What got a raised eyebrow was a comment
That is, merging PRs that were generated by LLMs without any human supervision. That is at least on the road (“borderline”) to vibe-coding, something that will lead to poor software quality if done at a large scale. It does not mean that the actual full Tachikoma package or @kahliburke’s development practices in their entirety are “borderline”.
I would note that the package was registered (which included my review, without being flagged), long before this entire discussion. The way the no-vibe-coding guideline gets applied in practice is that when I or anyone else reviewing registrations notices obvious and egregious slop, we can raise a flag and link to that policy without having to explain over and over again what exactly we expect for registered packages. It is not a blanket policy against LLM usage.
Great, because that’s what the guidelines actually are. So we’re all in agreement, and maybe we can stop arguing in circles?