>> If the project is about testing Claude's capabilities, the prompts will be more interesting to have.

> It's not like it's a single shot generation or anything.

Since you've submitted a "Show HN: Vibe Prolog" and shared in the repo:

  I was working on something else and as a side effect 
  accidently vibe coded a prolog interpretor on my phone over 
  the weekend.

The GP's observation of the prompts being highly relevant is substantiated. Arguably even more so than the Python code committed.

Especially since there have been 82 commits in the span of 3 days.

EDIT:

And I am really interested in how you "vibe coded" the commit[0] which made this singular change:

   - uv run pytest tests/ttest_additional_builtins.py -v
   + uv run pytest tests/test_additional_builtins.py -v

0 - https://github.com/nlothian/Vibe-Prolog/commit/0bf4beba70dea...

Yeah I think I modified the Github action though the web interface for that or something? I don't recall.

I don't think this is a violation of my (self-imposed) rules - it's supporting config, not code.

> I don't think this is a violation of my (self-imposed) rules - it's supporting config, not code.

Before this[0] HN comment, I had seen no evidence of prompts used to affect change, only the commits pushed to GitHub. Maybe others had access to those prompts or I just missed them, either way I applaud you for having shown a sample of those used.

As to any determination of "violations", that is not my place. All I was hoping for was some evidence of "vibe coding" being employed. Without evidence, it is nigh on impossible for anyone to have confidence claims made are plausible outside of those making them.

0 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46044782

Maybe don't say things like this then?

  > So there are two reasonable explanations:

  >  A) There is no way to show prompts used when "vibe coding".
  >  B) This claim of "vibe coding" a Prolog is disingenuous.

The actual explanation is that it never occurred to me that this would interest anyone!

There's some more prompts here: https://github.com/nlothian/Vibe-Prolog/blob/main/docs/WORKF...

I do not think that [0] was vibe coded. Vibe coding something does not mean that everything is vibe coded, or at least I would have never expected it to be the case.

> I do not think that [0] was vibe coded. Vibe coding something does not mean that everything is vibe coded ...

The author claims in the project README.md[0]:

  I was working on something else and as a side effect 
  accidently vibe coded a prolog interpretor on my phone over 
  the weekend.

And has yet to show any evidence of "vibe coding", to the point where I chose one of many commits challenging this position.

So there are two reasonable explanations:

  A) There is no way to show prompts used when "vibe coding".
  B) This claim of "vibe coding" a Prolog is disingenuous.

Which do you think is the case?

0 - https://github.com/nlothian/Vibe-Prolog

README.md is definitely an output of an LLM.

As for the rest of the code, it could be. Are there any obvious patterns you have found to be LLM generated?

In any case, my point is that a typo probably does not have to use LLM to fix that single typo.

So you can use LLMs but it is probably not used for everything, for example this typo.