If the author doesn’t specifically make a declaration in the readme, is there a way to guess how “vibe coded” a project is?
Like I want to know if there is anyone actually in charge… A human who knows at least how to program their own program.
If the author doesn’t specifically make a declaration in the readme, is there a way to guess how “vibe coded” a project is?
Like I want to know if there is anyone actually in charge… A human who knows at least how to program their own program.
This is the right answer. If there are code comments that use complex multi-clause sentences that don’t convey much meaning compared to the complexity of their structure, it’s Claude. Try searching the codebase for “carries” to find one.
To elaborate with a REAL EXAMPLE, Claude writes comments like this:
/* Drop seam: a CM6 line decoration built by the adapter on the seam row (above the first line, or below the previous line). The row itself is untouched — zero layout impact — and it scrolls with the text flow. The visible line is an overflowing pseudo-element; its x offset and width come from the adapter's seamOffset geometry, exposed as CSS variables by the paint view plugin. The overflowing 2px sits inside the *neighbor* line's box (below-seam → top of the target line). Lines with a background (code blocks, callouts, …) would paint over it in DOM order, so the pseudo carries a z-index: positive z-index paints above all z-index:auto lines inside the editor's stacking context (.cm-editor has contain: layout style), while never escaping to Obsidian's app chrome. */Like, what the fuck are you saying! The text content is borderline gibberish. It’s dressed up in parentheses, em dashes, arrows, semicolons, and colons all in the same paragraph, making the phrases unnecessarily complicated.
A human, if they wrote a comment, would explain the same code like this:
/* appear on top of text */Though mostly, humans don’t write comments at all, lol.