- 104comments
- 9comments
- 3comments
- 467comments
- 116comments
- 202comments
- 21comments
- 152comments
- 51comments
- 62comments
- 219comments
- 5comments
- 88comments
- 75comments
- 19comments
- 47comments
- 3comments
- 18comments
- 35comments
- 8comments
- 30comments
- 44comments
- 91comments
- 343comments
- 33comments
- 31comments
- 28comments
- 1comments
- 38comments
- 381comments
Auditing the actual code would build far more trust than any third-party certification. That's the real win here for security-conscious deployments.
Pure slop, completely unadulterated from what I can tell.
Kudos for at least admitting upfront that it’s pure slop, I guess.
Easier than reading the source myself, but I don't think the site makes a good case for why I SHOULD apply CC's patterns to my own systems, besides it being the most used harness. It's clearly useful software, but that doesn't _necessarily_ translate to something to learn from.
It is apparently a vibecoded mess: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47772282