> 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.
> 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!
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