> AI changed all of that. My low-effort issues were becoming low-effort pull requests, with AI doing both sides of the work. My poor Claude had produced a nonsense issue causing the contributor's poor Claude to produce a nonsense solution. The thing is, my shitty AI issue was providing value.

Seems like shitty AI issue did more harm than good?

Yea I think the author is wrong as well. I have a similar skill but the key difference is the instructions are just to fix typos. Why would the author not just use Claude as the plumbing and retain his old nonsense issues is beyond me.

This is the bit that struck me as odd. The author is creating issue slop but blames the contributor for treating it as genuine. The author wants to continue creating slop issues and decides that blocking all external contributions is the solution, rather than spending less time creating slop.

Their slop issues do not actually have value because the fixes based on the slop are equal in their sloppiness.

Author could instead create these slop issues in a place where external contributors can't see them instead of shitting on the contributors for not reading their mind.

Really bizarre lack of self awareness. How do the internal contributors deal with the slop? I wonder what they say about this person in private.