[dabedee]

Hey there! I find the idea super relevant and I think compliance tools that can be used like this are the way forward.

Given the timeline of the commits and some other tells (e.g. using forwardRef despite using React 19 which deprecates it), it seems like you used coding assistants extensively. That's a personal preference, but I would mention that explicitly (if that's the case), if only for intellectual honesty.

[9dev]

Hard disagree from me there. I don’t care what language a tool is built with, I’m neither interested in their choice of code editor, nor whether they use AI in the process or not. It’s a means to an end, not some flaw to be ashamed of and forced to disclose.

If something gets built with AI or not at all, that’s a net positive as far as I’m concerned.

[mort96]

I care. Plenty of people care. You are free to ignore that piece of the readme.

[9dev]

Point is I don’t want people to get shamed for their tools over some vague idea of intellectual purity.

[mort96]

Point is I do

[hiepler]

Thanks, appreciate the thoughtful feedback.

You’re right that the commit history doesn’t fully reflect the raw development process. I did some cleanup and squashing before publishing, since this is an open-source project and I wanted the history to be readable and reviewable.

I do use coding assistants as part of my workflow, mostly for iteration speed and boilerplate, but the architectural decisions, evaluation logic, and compliance mapping are intentional and manually reasoned through.

Happy to clarify any part of the implementation or assumptions if something looks odd.

[Tiberium]

Is there a reason why you're using LLMs for comments as well?