well how did it do?

Hard to say. Claude’s very good at writing READMEs. In fact, Copilot often complains about docs that sound like they’re about current capabilities when in fact they’re future plans or just plan aspirational.

Without downloading and testing out your software, how can we know if it’s any good? Why would we do that if it’s obviously vibed? The dilemma.

I’m not at all against vibe coding. I’m just pointing out that having a nice README is trivial. And the burden of proof is on you.

▲

wocram an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Shouldn't you be able to answer that?

▲

odvcencio an hour ago | parent [-]

yes and if you clicked the links you would know that i did answer it in the readme.

	▲	mathfailure an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		But how do we know the readme isn't also vibecoded?
	▲	do_not_redeem an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> Pure-Go tree-sitter runtime — no CGo, no C toolchain, WASM-ready. No you didn't. The readme is obvious LLM slop. Em-dash, rule of three, "not x, y". Why should anyone spend effort reading something you couldn't be bothered to write? Why did you post it to HN from a burner account?