I vibecode many packages. Mostly small experiments, but some may eventually be useful enough to register. Certainly vibecoded packages have lower code quality than manually written ones at the moment, even in skillful hands (and can be abysmal in unskilled hands), but I don’t think that’s grounds for categorical refusal. After all, we don’t have a rule “must have at least 4 months of programming experience before registering a package”, even though similar things could be said. I think the answer here is just to extend the disclosure requirement from Base to the registry. If the AI use is obvious, but not disclosed, ding the author for rule violation. I think that solves a fair bit of the “vibe-coded not because it’s useful, but because I want to look impressive” style PRs. Then for packages with the proper disclosure, there can be a case-by-case discussion on code quality. In general, I’ve always been a strong advocate that the General registry maintainers have plenary authority to manage the namespace for the benefit of the end user. However, as with all such power, it needs to be exercised with caution to avoid the appearance of capriciousness. I’m worried we’ve moved a bit too far in that direction recently anyway (not a criticism of the people doing the work - it’s a hard job). All that to say - let’s try the disclosure rule and see what happens.
7 Likes