> Yes, I haven't even read most of the files, just threw it up there as an example for the OP (I too am tired of the lack of examples, so stepped up to the plate on this one).

Right, kind of like an LLM skimming and missing the core points :)

OP didn't ask for "Anything you've vibe-coded" but explicitly asked for code written with LLMs that is high quality and structurally sound, and "creates more value than it creates technical debt". That's why I felt like reviewing the code in the first place, and why I gave the feedback.

I understand now that maybe it felt like my impromptu code review came out of nowhere, but I thought you were actually trying to give OP a accurate sample, so sorry if it felt like it came out of nowhere :)

▲

zh3 3 hours ago | parent [-]

NP, and the exact definition of vibe-coding is, I think, yet to be determined. This wasn't a yolo, it was read all the prompts and generally accept them. Overall I'd say the code and web page are at least of a quality I've seen in many commercial settings; the code itself looks reasonable and if I was to do anything to it for a real 'release', I'd update the documentation which has suffered due to the extensive scope creep during implementation.

▲

embedding-shape 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> the exact definition of vibe-coding is, I think, yet to be determined

Huh? No, that's been established since Karpathy coined the term; you don't review the code, only use the agent and don't care about how it was done, just about the results.

The actual interesting stuff is how to use LLMs together with a human, to build high quality code. More "augmenting the human intellect" rather than "autonomous robots building for you".

Overall I'd say if someone handed you a specification that named SSE specifically, you created files with SSE in the name, and the implementation talks about doing SSE, yet it doesn't actually do SSE in the end, it's pretty much on par with code in commercial settings, yeah :) But maybe our bar should be slightly above the ground at least? :)

▲

maerch an hour ago | parent [-]

> Huh? No, that's been established since Karpathy coined the term; you don't review the code, only use the agent and don't care about how it was done, just about the results.

However, nowadays it is used as a synonym for everything that is somehow generated by an LLM. Regardless of whether it is a spec-driven, carefully reviewed and iterative piece of software or some yolo-style one-prompter with no idea how it was done.

	▲	embedding-shape 41 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, by people who don't actually understand what they're talking about, doesn't mean we need to fall to lowest common denominator here on HN too. Most people understanding "hacking" differently than us, but we've made that work, we can talk about hacking here without other HN users believing we're cracking passwords, why not the same for other terms?