I think that Julia discourse should host some discussion about the use of LLM and coding agents in the registered packages.

[image] Ronis_BR: Because I think that: Packages that are “vibe-coded” (generated by an LLM without human review) are not suitable for registration. See the LLM policy . is too vague. What is human review? Go through each line? Only checking if the outcome is correct? Did you click those …

[image] goerz: Just to be extra clear, again: I’m not seeing any issues with the Tachikoma.jl package from which this discussion spun off. You definitely seem to have sufficient experience to use the agent-workflow effectively. So: more power to you! Oh well that’s a relief, considering the s…

[image] goerz: When you use an LLM, you “own” the code. It will be judged by the same standards as if you had submitted it by hand. And, if it shows signs of “slop”, you won’t get much of a benefit-of-the-doubt. So “human review” means whatever you deem necessary to fully stand behind your pack…

[image] mbauman: By registering a package, you’re taking something valuable from the community — a name in the default Pkg registry. Why is the Julia registry so different from pypi in this regard? Why do we care if a name is used?

[image] Ronis_BR: By “curate” I mean that someone is downloading the package, running some code, checking if documentation is OK, etc. This does not happen to a very high percentage of the registered packages The automated checks handle downloading and installing the package. I definitely gl…

[image] goerz: I also wouldn’t mind if major breaking versions and 1.0 in particular had a waiting period with the potential for stricter automatic and manual review. That’s a thorny issue, though, because it might raise the bar for packages to go to 1.0, when we really want more packages to get…

[image] langestefan: Why is the Julia registry so different from pypi in this regard? Why do we care if a name is used? PyPI also cares about the packages in its registry, albeit to a lesser extent. It restricts registration of some names , allows for reclaiming abandoned names , and will even …

[image] goerz: I also wouldn’t mind if major breaking versions and 1.0 in particular had a waiting period with the potential for stricter automatic and manual review. That’s a thorny issue, though, because it might raise the bar for packages to go to 1.0, when we really want more packages to get…

[image] Ronis_BR: Just so you know, there are much bigger issues facing our community than “this package is vibe-coded.” But it makes such a convenient target … :wink:

Policies around registering AI-created packages in General?

Tooling

goerz March 17, 2026, 5:09pm 69

Community consensus. Or, strictly speaking, registry-maintainer consensus. I’d again point to the older thread about Background: General is moderately but not totally permissive

Topic		Replies	Views
Should General have a guideline or rule preventing registration of vibe-coded packages? Community general-registry	82	2531	October 21, 2025
Reliability of AI coding tools Offtopic llm	30	759	November 19, 2025
JuliaLang/julia is AI slop now and I am heartbroken Community	28	1322	March 29, 2026
Please more bureaucracy on package registrations! Package Management	20	1318	June 11, 2023
The present and the future of package registration Package Management	80	2628	June 11, 2023

Policies around registering AI-created packages in General?

Related topics