Yeah, all fair questions.

To address the LLM question - almost all MD files in the codebase were built around the codebase by an LLM. I simply don't have the time; this project is a side project and not my main squeeze. This is also a pre-v1 codebase; I will have time soon enough to address anything overly 'LLM' flavored.

My experience covers nearly two decades in one way or another. Having said that, I've never felt like I had the time, nor the need, for rscrypto. The last year was different; I genuinely needed this myself for my actual work. I have worked on rscrypto in part for a year. This isn't like a whimsical LLM codebase or some vibe coded junk.

I use LLMs in my workflows every single day and have for the better part of two-years; I gain more trust in them almost weekly, too. I feel like there isn't an engineer on Earth who can say otherwise and if there is... I'd probably argue with them against integrating LLMs into their tooling in some way.

Finally, the actual important question... not all primitives are tested against Wycheproof vectors yet. RSA - yes; the whole crate, not yet. Again, it's just a time thing. I've used official RFC/NIST vectors, RustCrypto/oracle differential tests, proptests, fuzz corpus replay, Miri where applicable, and backend-vs-portable equivalence tests to cover the rest of the codebase.

Also, “proofed” is too strong a word for test vectors, IMO. Wycheproof is regression evidence against known bug classes, not a proof of cryptographic correctness.

Nevertheless, it's a valid point and it's covered in my backlog as of like a month ago.