If you do not respect your project to write your readme yourself chances are i will not care though.
replyFor many new coders, LLMs are so good at writing the code, asking it to write the ReadMe sounds like a good idea. Clearly it’s the first impression your project makes so handwriting it is important.
replyBeing turned off by the project because of the ReadMe is your prerogative. I’m just suggesting you dig into the code sometimes, the ReadMe is not the be all, end all.
> For many new coders, LLMs are so good at writing the code, asking it to write the ReadMe sounds like a good idea. Clearly it’s the first impression your project makes so handwriting it is important.
replyThe point is that if they looked at the result they'd question themselves. And the fact that they don't is a violation of the social contract: I can hardly be expected to care about your work, if you don't.
But it takes so little effort to wade through an LLM readme and cut out or edit it down to something palatable.
replyJust the bare minimum effort to do that would be nice.
I apply the same rule to the code, unless it is on the job and I have to follow along with the herd, or else....
replyPerhaps we should have README.md and README.ai the latter containing a bunch of stuff that humans don't want to read but agents can use to answer questions humans ask
replyYour comment might be sarcastic, but AGENTS.md already exists for the explicit purpose of agents reading and using it.
replyThis project is 100% slop, as evidenced by all commits having a Claude attribution. https://github.com/awlevin/typesafe-computer-use/graphs/cont...
replyYou’re right that a poor quality readme doesn’t mean a poor-quality product, but it seems more likely than not to me.
replySlop is an instant tab close for me. If something’s good, it’ll come around again. I’ll catch it when there's some evidence that it’s worth my time.