i find something a bit funny in an ai project, written by ai, requiring human-written text with specific guidance to not use ai.

"Given that coding agents write most underlying code now, we'd prefer PRs in the form of human-written text. [...] Please do not have AI artificially expand what you'd like to do into a formal proposal."

▲

sigbottle 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

XY problem, don't expand the design doc before you have the idea for the design. Don't compile down into lower abstraction levels until necessary

▲

petesergeant 33 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's not surprising. I have much the same thing in my latest open-source work[0]. I have a workflow that's working nicely with agents, it's more of a pain to review someone else's code than it is to get a well-written description of their problem.

0: https://github.com/pjlsergeant/byre?tab=contributing-ov-file

▲

ronsor 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Coding agents are extremely useful but often extremely dumb with design. If you do not design the software yourself, you will probably get slop. This was always the core issue with vibe coding.

▲

j45 2 hours ago | parent [-]

AI Averages, and is inclined to do average designs and implementations, which in some cases might be an improvement, but long term it creates more to deal with.

▲

bityard 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Hm. If "AI averages," then why doesn't it create an average amount to deal with, instead of more?

	▲	ronsor 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Because competent people are evaluating it. In places where the standards are rock-bottom, the AI is leagues ahead of anything they'd produce normally.
	▲	freeone3000 an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Because the “average” developer is incompetent.

▲

warkdarrior 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They specifically ask not to create/submit a formal proposal. I do not see any restriction on the use of AI otherwise.

▲

john_strinlai 2 hours ago | parent [-]

i read the emphasized "human-written" part, in combination with that last line, as a blanket restriction (for contributing). but perhaps i read it wrong.

	▲	embedding-shape 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		List of commits already include at least two contributors who are openly working with Claude on their code: https://github.com/yc-software/qm/commits/main/

▲

stefan_ an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Yet the README is generated ("Two skills maintain the boundary in both directions.") and the demo is .. a Mobius strip?

I'd prefer if you explain what it is you are building in the form of human-written text.

	▲	jaggederest an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Well, if they're consistent, the ADR directory contains only human written text that drives the underlying development... Aaand it's empty. Well. I personally would probably have the readme generated based on that directory as the primary document, probably with another `readme_generation_rules.md` in the ADRs directory, and I would be pretty ruthless about disallowing all the slop-adjacent wording.